INDEX

1)COMMON OPPROBRIUM ORIGIN OF MORALITY AND THE CULTURALLY-POSITED RATIONAL

2) DEFINE EXO SELF MORE CLEARLY:

3) NOTES FORM A VIVIR QUE SON DOS DIAS (9OCT16)

3.5) SUB VERSUS MAIN META SYSTEMS AND CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

4) La Físio-política y verdadera Pax Americain

5)ART AND INCIPIENT CULTURAL DOMINANCE OVER THE POWER OF IMAGES

6) Explain an Exo-Self conceptualization in The Conversation (1974)

7) Notes on the Physiologically Rational and its violence.

8)A significance of “Watergate” in the following films?

9) soberanía sobre la realidad

10) From Nef Cultural Foundations of Industrial Civilization (1956,58)

11)  RATIONAL BUT UNINTENTIONAL?

12) Exo-Notes from Snell

13) From The Paranoid Style in American Politics, by Richard Hofstadter

Harper’s Magazine, November 1964

14The “Exo-Self” Context of Economic Structure (Money)

15)La relación antropológica con la muerte

16)Suspension Anthropology and “Exo-Suspension” of Self

17)The Physical versus only The Physiologically Real

18) Physically Different Individuals Become Groups…

19)AMANPOUR (CPJ) 22NOV16

20) Canetti and Crowds

 

 

 

 

 

1)COMMON OPPROBRIUM ORIGIN OF MORALITY AND THE CULTURALLY-POSTED RATIONAL

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. 

PHILIPPIANS 4:8

 

Rationality is based on what is commonly understood to be true; common sense—or the better part of it—is founded in what the group “knows” to be true, for dependent is the individual on opprobrium-acquired notions of the conceptually real, although individual bodily experience and vulnerability allows for an uncommon and singular common sense regarding certain aspects of immediately physical, immediately physiological experience only the individual can truly experience and know. But how much of individual common sense and ken is based only on personally-lived, direct experience?

 

OPPROBRIUM MORALITY——OPPROBRIUM RATIONALITY

         ARE

                   OPPROBRIUM-GENERATED, INDIVIDUALLY ACQUIRED MEANING

 

         Thus

 

THE FOUNDATION OF MEANING IS ULTIMATELY IN INDIVIDUAL

                                     BODILY  VULNERABILITY.

 

So if in fact individual physiological and physiologically rational nature—as of the experiencing of bodily vulnerability—is the key to opprobrium-based, culturally-posited group rationality, likewise the ultimate means of reinforcement of group morality is also in the individual’s sense of bodily vulnerability:

Ultimate systemic viability of the cultural—its true but cryptic life force of its own entity—is really the individual’s experiencing of bodily vulnerability and the resulting vital fury and will towards self-affirmation and physiological imposition.

And so individual morality (individual moral meaning and sense of moral (or immoral) self) is then clearly BECAUSE OF THE GROUP and bodily vulnerability in this context is a virtual and totemic sense of non-rational and not conceptually articulated, but physiologically felt and perceived threat; that is thus physical threat removed altogether into the physiological, and permanently beyond immediate rational comprehension THAT OBVIOUSLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF EVOLUTIONARY ANTHROPOLOGY is being alive individually towards the group’s survival in the very bypassing of cognitive, rational process—that is, not as reflex in individuals towards self-preservation, but rather as an individual biological safeguard of group survival and cohesion.

_______________

• And thus rationality could then be understood as package, parcel and patrimony of really the group; that is in some sense also, finally, coherence itself as the ultimate guardian of collective possibility, and that makes more intensely physiological modes of human, rational being both positive and negative realms of really individual experience—which may necessarily exercise itself in episodes of elation and invigorated physiological fury (of whatever nature), but its very intrinsic entity cannot be publicly summoned out into the agora of collective oversight and rection.

 

• The rational and the moral are thus—once again—ultimately difficult to differentiate in that both are of this one and the same collective fabric and circumstances of group experience.

 

 

• Self-preservation of the individual’s will to life is thus commandeered through opprobrium to actually the group’s survival, and ultimately not that of the individual—which, in certain but historically repetitive circumstances leads again and again to a kind of anthropological drift and destrurctive off-centering of the cultural and physiologically semiotic mechanism of stability, that would in fact remove itself from the true but culturally cryptic foundation of moral possibility within human groups, that is—paradoxically from the standpoint of the culturally structural—the singular individual’s sense of only bodily vulnerability.

 

• OPPROBRIUM (bodily vulnerability) MORAL-RATIONAL COHERENCE (bodily vulnerability) GROUP STABILITY, COHESION AND SURVIVAL (bodily vulnerability) INDIVIDUAL SELF-PRESERVATION (bodily vulnerability, necessarily at times against the opprobic)

 

 

The anthropological problem of bodily vulnerability: sometimes it is not individual!

And thus the rational and also moral possibilities of group experience can be come undermined—that is typically throughout history (apparently) the very jeopardizing of group experience itself.

Individuality, anthropologically, is not individual, but rather culturally structural or paradigmatic—because bodily vulnerability in the individual is commandeered through opprobrium by the group—that is thus a physiologically real illusion of sorts and the very foundation of moral-rational, human group structure; but as the illusion prospers, culturally through time, it can naturally remove the individual’s physiological experiencing of bodily vulnerability further and further away from the actual physical and physically vulnerable, nature of real experience, what could be understood essentially as Spengler´s Problem, dilemma or conundrum.

That thus becomes the technically empirical foundation for arguing that human moral possibilities are in fact NOT compatible with a never ending stream of technological advances that blindly remove anthropological individuality from a physical sense of the human, individual self; that is, unless the greatest, unending effort is continuously exerted towards a rational, conceptual understanding of the true physiological substance of human experience—at least by somebody in your society and cultural experience, if you yourself can’t/won’t/are not interested—or find yourself too physiologically consumed in being you!

 

_________________

The Exo Cultural Self: as if I “needed to be racist” to know who I am especially in regards to the group I am an impossibly individual member of—so I know what I am in the perception of what I know my group is not (although I don’t, of course, rationally “know” this). And this similarly to the way primary and corporal individuality becomes as of one’s knowing what I am in what I perceive I am not. And as just the rational perceiver truly am I a savage force of imposition and will to be, that in some way is coldly “outside myself”—but intensely invigorated and at my side; or as a mode of physiologically, phsyio-rationally invigorated comfort I can step back into when I need to or am driven to, that may or may not know no mercy whatsoever in regards to others but that no matter how opprobically subject I am to higher modes of extrinsic physiological control and decorum, my perceiver self as adversary—no doubt—remains permanently.

“A mode of physiologically, physio-rationally invigorated comfort” because IT FEELS GOOD to be vigorously me—that is still a “rational I” but supremely vigorous as the “power self” that is a “tactically rational I” and not reflexively or expansively so…And thus would seem to be simply a rationality as rider of the physiological and its once-again-renewed existential deliverance “unto me and the rational self”.

And so when I know once again this “hyper” and tactically rational perceiving self, I am UNTO MYSELF KOWN once again out from under the weight of this that is the particular cultural physio-semiotics I am comprised by—but that, in sense, is not really—or fully—me.

I am more than just the opprobrium-driven me; and surely the opprobrium-formed self I know as of the cultural context that creates my individuality, could not itself exist if not for the physiologically rational and tactic other side of myself—for it is the bodily vulnerable, bodily furious side of what I am that REQUIRES (and thereby creates and SUPPORTS) the opprobrium-enforced and physiologically semiotic I of collective, cultural and social possibility.

And we are and understand what we collectively know are selves to be as individuals—actually through our bodies and physiologically, and less so through rational thought and the conceptual.

 

2) DEFINE EXO SELF MORE CLEARLY:

 

3) EFFERENT

 

((1)INDIVIDUAL————————2) EXO SELF IDEAL [Opprobically constituted in                                        

                                                                      the physiologically totemic and virtual others individuality is a product of]

 

4) AFFERENT

 

 

 

((1)) PHYSICALLY REAL

-Bodily vulnerable self

-Singularly real others

-Moral reality of physical context regarding singular others.

((2)) PHYSIOLOGICALLY REAL AND VIRTUAL

-Opprobrium

-Semiotic posits and ideals

-Totemic mechanisms of self-definition

-Becomes physiological enhancement of physical limitation; becomes meaning itself!

-Thus physiologically real only for the individual, but collectively common in its semiotic entity.

______________________

Thus physiological and physio-rational virtuality is not in itself communication! It is what is termed an event of the mind initially. Thus the rationally comprehensible implies ultimately (and also initially in the very foundation of culture as we understand it, LANGUAGE!) Because a mind is indeed a terrible thing to waste—but it is also a very lonely place!

A Culturally defined (false? removed?) sense of rational self

Physiology and the rider:

-Golem

-Need to be physiologically immersed in invigorated movement (as actual physical movement, or invigorated physiological and/or physiologically rational process.

–Zombi as important figure of human social-anthropological nature.

 

3) NOTES FORM A VIVIR QUE SON DOS DIAS (9OCT16)

Conservatism tends towards extrinsic definition of the individual and individuality; or is the imposition of rational arguments and conceptualizations to defend just this aspect of human group and anthropological experience. It thus ultimately cannot maintain logical coherence despite its rationally presented nature of argument, given that its deeper purpose is to in fact stave off rational endeavor on the part of the human, thinking subject as form of physiologically semiotic stability and definition—in the very contention of the rational itself. Thus in this context is rationality to be structurally understood as physio-anthropological pretext that further removes itself from rational understanding in the fact that its deeper purpose of physio-semiotic process is unknown to the human subjects themselves, and in their own physiologically rational agency of imposition,

Tooth and nail and to the bitter, bitter end!

But anthropology itself tends towards the extrinsic exo definition of self, anyway. Of course: and so rationality could thus be conceptualized eventually as a force of cultural equilibrium against the deeper phsyio-psychological realities of opprobrium-configured human groups.

But rationality—alas—is itself also opprobrium-generated and will never completely remove itself form its own physiological substance and nature. How rational can rationality—defined in this opprobic sense—actually be?

Is science then, an attempt to break with exo-self nature of human perception and experience? For to postulate the nature of reality on only what I can observe, is also a way of defying my very physio-psychological dependence on my surrounding reality and environment, as if to affirm I am the observer of that which I am not, and thus no longer subject ontologically to knowing myself in what I perceive I am not. And man strikes out at reality by rejecting, in a way and as a cognitive technique, his very dependence on it, finally and very much as a form of aggression against it—that thus renounces the forging of physio-rational, physio-semiotic contexts based on physical limitation and the possibility of man’s rational positing on that which he cannot in fact rationally understand (that is precisely the reason why he can say whatever he wills about it and towards eventually his own exo-self, cultural, and anthropological advantage!) Science, on the other hand only gained momentum, historically, in its own self-confidence and ultimately—power of human self-imposition, but actually as a form of negation of his truer physio-anthropological entity!

And he never looked back!

Systemically, in what way is our own notion of self thus dependent on an imagery of the scientific self? Would not the scientific self naturally influence a broader and contemporary cultural self that is our own?

__________________________________________

The structurally anthropological bases itself on really a human physiology of NOT knowing as of human physical limitation hence definition, which can only be considered core to human genetics itself; sedentary and agrarian experience, in its recourse to the physiologically real and virtual, builds on exactly this aspect of human, biological entity: How could the emergence of science and technical thought not be considered structurally significant in this regard as a serious force of change and alteration of the basic human mode of anthropological being, that is effectively one of also a physiologically virtual dependence, as well as physical? And I am in my perceiving what I am not, becomes—at least methodologically—the exclusion of the perceiving self altogether, and its final absorption by the object of analysis.

 

 

3.5) SUB VERSUS MAIN META SYSTEMS AND CONCEPTUALIZATIONS

-Electronic devices—telephones, computers-and the sub electronic and signal systems they are designed with, but that the user is unaware of.

–Double bind principle of psychology

–Meta Data (computer systems)

-Alternate systems from which to interpret same symbolic entity; alternate paradigmatic structure of interpretation.

–The Polysemic: same signifier, but different linguistic interpretation.

–Words used as numbers; numbers used as words.

–Plaza publica versus off-the-board semiotic and financial agency.

-Representation/Reality

-Democratic society VERSUS intelligence communities

-Published culture VERSUS internet

-Triangle conceptualization of communication between two entities who then individually may seek to leverage their position against the other, through a third party entity, element or circumstance; that is still a single channel of communication plus a parallel realm and source of some form of leverage (that is thus still a form of duality).

 

 

19oct16

4) La Físio-política y verdadera Pax Americain

http://www.caffereggio.net/2016/10/19/huevos-de-antoni-puigverd-en-la-vanguardia/

[párrafo final] A menudo, como vemos, los dilemas son construcciones retóricas. Forzando el debate sobre lo anecdótico,

Sirven para que no se hable de lo que es evidente:

Las anécdotas son la sal y la pimienta de la información,

         pero bloquean la reflexión.

El lema de los escritores, Nulla dies sine linea, ha sido transformado así por los medios:

Nulla dies sine pugna. Ningún día sin pelea.

 

¿Está a favor o en contra de las estatuas franquistas en el Born?

¡Mójese! ¡Decídase!

¡Qué gran oportunidad ha dado esta exposición! Aquel país que, minorías a parte, se acomodó al franquismo con tanta naturalidad ahora, 40 años después, puede darse el gusto heroico de lanzar huevos sobre las estatuas de Franco.

 

__________________________________

 

 

5)ART AND INCIPIENT CULTURAL DOMINANCE OVER THE POWER OF IMAGES

Cave paintings that we are to understand as going back some 40,000 years ago could thus constitute the beginning of man’s culture trek to higher forms of dominance over the physiologically disturbing and, particularly, the power of images; for what is pictorial art but a human efferent use and agency of that which man normally only perceives through his eyes—normally and also constantly as the physiologically sensitive object of those images man is? Thus in the same way man would violently seek to physiologically go beyond his own limitation in regards to his immediate needs, and the remedying of immediate discomforts, so would he naturally drive ferociously towards the wielding of his own power to create images, over—of course—the perception of his fellows (probably initially in regards to friends and fellows—then later, his foes—such would be the amazement of his new found power!)

And thus clearly before the cognitive (and finally conceptual understanding) comes physiological experience, that only later becomes refined, made more systematic taking on the form of what we understand as rational; and this in regards to the evolution of language itself, culturally-posited rationality and whatever historical process of evolution, from some initial state to an in-whatever-way more refined and sophisticated posterior point. And of course in regards universally to our living, bodily present that is necessarily always physiological before it can be rational, or rationally understood, codified and culturally subjected—or simply defined.

 

 

27oct16

 

6) Explain an Exo-Self conceptualization in The Conversation (1974) :

Harry Caul hardly relates at all in the physiologically immediate with almost anyone, except only in the protected context of work and the easy, very much standardized projection of the physiological self it requires towards culturally common, culturally programmed idealizations of individuality—where being yourself effectively allows you to comfortably extricate the more individually idiosyncratic, controversial realms of personality that inevitably disturb others and the negative consequences this entails for the individual. In this context, and without a more wholesome and physiologically direct connection to others, Caul’s sense of self leans more towards the culturally structural and physiologically abstract plane of the anthropological configuration of human groups, in which bodily individuality is subject to a universal force of opprobrium-configured, group cohesion and that is thus more of culturally structural self, in detriment to and away from the bodily self.

 

Caul thus relates physio-totemically to the people he only knows in a representational form, through the audio (perhaps also video) material he collects on them, but according to the needs and dictates of his clients (those power people who pay to know about and leverage themselves in some way against the surveillance-targeted individuals Caul monitors);

 

For in no other way can he actually relate to the different human dramas he intensely (but only partially) scrutinizes; and most crucially must he refrain from any moral involvement whatsoever, in regards to what he is observing and also with respect to the real and deeper motives of his paying client—to the point that he is professionally required to steel himself against the opprobic altogether which thus allows him to circumvent and even elevate himself above the social and anthropologically structural, ultimately obviating the very need for culturally-configured opprobrium-vulnerable individuality itself. And this, simply because he works in secrecy and behind the back so to speak of the human, societal group’s moral—or even rational—scrutiny.

 

But physio-totemically does the self relate to any and all idealizations individuals are subject to in their own physiological projection of whatever ultimately opprobrium-based nature, as of the culturally semiotic and those symbolic entities the group holds as relevant; or as the result of simply the individuals’ direct physiologically relevant visual perception.

 

Individual perception of the representational, however (and in the case of Harry Caul), if it is not permanently counterbalanced by the physiologically immediate need to also be in the integration of the two realms of anthropological individuality (an integration that is itself a physiologically immediate, bodily incarnation of only the physio-semiotic and anthropologically virtual self) through a physiologically immediate other, human physiologically rational process of mind begins to totemically relate to the representational itself, that is perhaps the context of a self that cannot become in its own entity specifically because of its omnipotence in just the representational, and that only in the bodily immediate, or in some connection to it, can the self morally be in a fuller, invigorated experiencing of the real.

 

So naturally does Caul resort to another means of fortifying his sense of self, and in a way he does in fact control (which it is in itself subjective and clearly physiologically totemic) that is his distorted, technically erroneous embrace of personal guilt with regards to the drama of the lives he observes, and given that, in the physiologically totemic isolation he has trapped himself in, he has no other way of garnering a truly invigorated sense of being alive.

 

It thus might be that in the absence of a physiologically immediate other, the exo-self road to richer self-integration is blocked, forcing the individual in fact deeper into a totemic—ultimately sterile—virituality of only a physiological and physiologically removed substance.

 

A virtual realm in which not even the omnipotent self—in her unchallenged solitude and isolation—is capable of relieving itself in some form of growth and expanse, except through internally directed ploys of ultimately a physiologically rational self-aggression.

 

The self in all its unforgiving tyranny it seems, dies when there is no “exo” element through which it can be by becoming, and crucially in the form of another human being and separate, living entity, who, unlike only the virtual and all things only physiologically totemic, the self has no immediate power over.

 

And thus,

 

In your independent entity and animated autonomy, is the very possibility of my becoming…

 

 

What else could civilization be, but that?

 

 

 

 

_________________________

Physiologically relevant is ‘opprobruim-configured’ and thus of consequence for the individual in even just her perception of the human universe, or in her culturally mediated contemplation of the real.

 

 

 

 

 

7) Notes on the Physiologically Rational and its violence.

• The confusion of cause and effect as the ascribing of causality to what is only coincidental—or co-referential—could be understood as form of power available to the individual to in fact impose, once again, on two different circumstances or events which neither can be confirmed as one being the consequence of the other, nor likewise can such a relationship between both be clearly contradicted. Thus does an opportunity arise for the perceiving subject to physio-rationally relate two only coincidental elements very much on the terms of one’s own subjective inclinations; as a form of only working and tentative certainty that, when carefully done (that is to say, according to a minimum logical assessment of both particular and broader realities), supplies the individual with a tentative point of consideration, and possibe action. The question of convictions instead of hard facts as the motivating force of people’s actions is thus better approached as a physiological phenomenon, rather than only a form of demeaned and poor, rational judgement. In terms of evolutionary anthropology, finally, it is simply obvious that human beings availed themselves of this hybrid form of reasoning (physiological and rationally structural) to impose themselves once again on their realities and to an apparently very high degree of success, no doubt.
• To say that mental fatigue can affect judgement could also be understood similarly as a physiological impingement on the semiotic and conceptual. In regards to more mundane contexts of personal option before physically difficult tasks of labor and precision, the fact that one might, after enormous effort exerted towards the achieving of whatever originally proposed objective, conform finally to a lesser-than-proposed standard could very well take place first and foremost in the internal physiologically rational undermining of the original terms of technical completion, given that the task undertaken requires a truly enormous force of physical will and effort. It would thus be conceivable to compromise those original objectives, if a minimum sense of even partial completion can be perceived as having been achieved; but that physiologically would take place in the very physical duress and in regards to a rational game of rectification of the mind, and perhaps even illusion. And that thus similarly (as in the case of ascription of cause and effect) becomes a physiologically rational response to, simply, changing circumstances of ultimately physical prowess and individual, physiological and physiologically rational
• In both cases, however, physical limitation is enhanced, compensated for and in some way overcome, which would only seem logical—typical—if man is in fact to be conceived in his nature as pushing the very limits of what confines/defines him; or if we are to consider his deeper physiologically vital nature as also a hollow man entity that is thus a permanent and essential being in his permanent need to become.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8)A significance of “Watergate” in the following films?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Days_of_the_Condor (1975)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaws_(film)  (1975)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Odessa_File_(film) (1974)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conversation (1974)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marathon_Man_(film) (1976)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Alien (1979)

Apocalypse Now (1979)

Being There (1979)

Raiders of The Lost Ark (1981)

Escape From NY (1981)

Outland (1981)

Blow Out (1981)

War Games (1983)

 

 

 

 

9) soberanía sobre la realidad ¿a partir en realidad de qué carencia exactamente, si conceptualizamos el poder de imposición fisiológica humana como la capacidad real de conseguir el confort básicamente inmediato? Pues entonces nos permitiría englobar y unificar bajo un solo criterio las distintas formas de físio-imposición humana; esto quiere decir, por ejemplo, que el impulso religioso humano-a igual que una vision conspiritativa de la realidad-no son sino formas de imposición humana sobre la realidad, y desde una vertiente fisiológicamente racional; que obliga pues a fundamentar todo tipo de imposición fisiológicamente racional humana sobre lo desconocido-sobre precisamente aquello en que no cabe la contradicción formal y empírica-como un mecanismo de agrandamiento físico-humano en lo simbólico y fisiológicamente racional, que es igualmente una forma de compensación fisiológicamente racional a partir de la limitación física y respecto aquello que sensorialmente no somos capaces de apresar. Que en rigor pues quiere decir que no hablamos solamente de un fenómeno político sino respecto del modo humano de ser y estar en el mundo. UN EJEMPLO DEL ‘EXO YO’

O SEA

Que soy yo pero tengo además muchos Yo-es exteriores, exteriores a mí y frente a los cuales me voy relacionando de distintas formas, pero siempre físio-totémicamente, siempre de forma fisiológicamente racional y según la fuerza extrínseca pero interior a mí que es el oprobio biológico-genético humano y que sólo el grupo humano al que pertenezco puede finalmente definir. Y sería que el yo más profundo mío, del que a veces me alejan las fuerzas regidoras socio-antropológicas (y esto creo que muy a mi pesar) es el yo sobre el que se monta todo el edificio antropológico del que soy inexorablemente producto, que es el yo por otra parte de toda individualidad corpórea posible, que es el yo opróbico-corporal y cimiento mismo de las posibilidades racionales, morales-y finalmente del mismo hecho significativo posible y potencial-de toda cultura.

 

_______________________

Lo real solo fisiológico sirve para ir más allá de las limitaciones físicas de la misma manera que la imposibilidad de contradicción permite traspasar los límites de lo racional o lo empíricamente comprobado, igualmente como una forma de agrandamiento de las limitaciones en cierto sentido físcos.

 

 

 

 

10) From Nef Cultural Foundations of Industrial Civilization (1956,58)

 

Rational Imposition VERSUS Religious Imposition

Believes it lives in a perpetual moving beyond the culturally standard, culturally delimited/Seeks to preserve the impossibility of contradiction as key point of strength of its semiotics and posits.

 

Discovery becomes a physiology in itself that similarly turns culturally-rational posits likewise into simply functional, physiological pretext / Is a rationally-based pretext to the physiological.

 

Also opprobrium-based, group extension / Opprobrium-based mechanism of individual-binding, physiological relevance.

 

 

 

_____________________________

The Danger of the Self-Evident is that self-evident truths are not at all truths of discovery (although their origins can be rationally understood or construed) but rather tend to find their chief justification in their physiologically functional entity.

 

ART

 

SCIENCE                       RELIGION

 

[INDIVIDUALITY]

 

______________________________________

And the physio-mental process of language itself!

 

 

Individuality itself as Art?

Parallel to a process of culture itself as a subject/object relationship with its own posits and ideals, so too does individuality propose and then physiologically relate to an ideal of itself, as  a necessary, totemcially external entity it can know itself off of, back on to itself that is not that ideal, but rather only—but significantly, crucially—a living and permanent tension towards becoming that ideal (that, as an ideal, implies the physiologically totemic self is indeed of its own deeper and independent entity; that this ideal is me in my will to be—that forcibly determines me as something more than that ideal—and thus it is I as a certain aspirer to it; and the ideal becomes a tool I use towards a becoming me that indeed makes me always something else, something even greater in my initial and permanent will to be in that ideal itself; and the ideal becomes really only a ”totemic accessory” to a greater, much more important “I”; and more significant than the ideal because we avail ourselves of ideals (which are in themselves eventually to be discarded in regards to a self that has in some way fortified itself of the ideal, but that can never actually be that ideal…; it is in this sense that being a self exceeds and “is greater than” just the ideal.)

 

Types of imposition

Given the empty nature of the human self as perceiver and in my knowing what I am in that which I perceive I am not, man’s being by imposing himself becomes the physical-physiological state and condition of a totemic man. Who is originally also a hollow man, and thus seeks forms of identity through a physiologically totemic connection to external entities from which he can know himself, and that is in fact a form of imposition, not just perception And just as striking out in some way into and against reality, modifying it and subordinating it in whatever manner (in regards to physical, spatial reality, as well the social and human, and crucially also, the conceptual) as the very modus vitale of hollow and totemic man, so is artistic expression also a form of essentially physiologically violent  self-imposition in regards specifically to man’s needing an external, independent confirmation of his own existence—which is latently exactly what the posting of divine entities is, behind and below the logic of narrative itself. And the fervor of physiologically totemic religious entity is subliminally this very violent force of imposition albeit disguised in physiological, physio-existential, culturally rational experience. Finally, it thus would seem that man quite justifiably is afraid of himself and his own limitations, and thus disguises what is really a violence of will to be, behind a physiologically totemic façade of subservience to the postulation of a higher, ideal self he, of course, can never be but that as an ideal serves him towards his own elevation—and that seems historically could never have taken place but for this very real–but physiologically totemic and virtual–possibility of growth.

 

A certain form of laziness it is, then, to continue be physio-totemically intertwined with physiologically totemic ideals—in exaclty this sense that ideals and the growth they bring, do not lead to higher forms of individual maturity until they are in fact discarded and left behind.

 

And thus in very real sense morality itself becomes a physiologically totemic and cultural virituality, but that leads eventually to extraordinary—extra and greater, higher—possibilities of self. But beyond god—or any form of higher realm of the divine—of course would be man’s ability to see through anthropological virituality to what is really at the core of it; which is simply physical and physiological, bodily experience, that in collective and sedentary circumstances must be defined physio-extrinsically and through biological opprobrium, and this quite obviously from an historical standpoint in regards to the universal mechanics of human groups. Physiologically immediate experience is thus the true foundation of cultural virituality; and if  individual physiology is not extrinsically defined by the culturally semiotic (in regards to what it means to be of the group according to the culturally rational and culturally appropriate and defined), it can only be structurally managed if the individual can herself live extrinsically in the interest of others, in regards to which one would no longer need to prostrate one’s self to the physio-semiotic posits of the cultural group and their divine task masters, punishers—and messiahs.

 

Although you are still gonna’ want to hold on to the judiciary, surely!

 

 

The Anthropological Self VERSUS Personality

[Vicarious models of physio-identity formation and experimentation: because as of agriculture I live necessarily in the projection of my physiological being (that is, in regards to this that I am and call myself), I also already live vicariously in regards to some form of ideal or model—quite usually imposed to some degree by opprobrium and moral sense—that is a model situationally and especially at first to some degree outside myself and extrinsic to me (that is, of course, the whole point of anthropological, semiotic rection of the individually physiological, anyway); and thus am I also prone to other and new physiological models—as ideals, when I come across them, or in regards to new physiological experiences that befall me (because surely even without a semiotic, rational idea and ideal as that which I shall be in my physiological projection of myself, new physiological experiences might also dictate, as of simply experience itself, new forms of physiologically construed identity arising through experience, first and not as the result of moral ideals or the opprobrium-based pressure of the moral; which is, of course, how the shadow abusers of contemporary political realism and manipulation see individuality, as exactly that which is physiological vulnerability through experience itself (through rape and murder, for example) that physiologically grows on the individual as of initiate and tentative, criminal experience (very probably because shadow abusers of  typically American and Anglo-Saxon Intelligence Communities are physiologically accustomed themselves to abusing their citizens, usually—but not necessarily only—through ideas and the semiotic, as the de facto guardians of physio-semiotic and financially aggregate, human order of their societies.) And so would not likely believe very seriously in real independence of individuality itself, anyway. That is, they impose what is their on mediocrity—and from their own position of negligent, decadent advantage over their fellow man—on others. [Farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!]

 

Thus the human proposal of the divine becomes also human, physiologically rational expanse, in regards to which human beings totemically relate in their own physiological projection and identity, that is the very possibility of a vicariously lived, divine-like experiencing of the dignity of the civilized individual (as really civilized because god-fearing self that is thus equipped suddenly to regard that same dignity in other human beings); and this in a culturally-structural, anthropological sense, off of which new spaces must also and eventually be physiologically sought, physio-semiotically wrought—such as the dignity of the body sensual of the Italian Renaissance that was perhaps the real beginning of science and behind the possibility itself of somebody like Galileo (who himself is as of the human corporeal in his very methodology and foundation of our contemporary understanding of objectivity and the empirical). And this historically, until something of a new Dark Age came along, at least in regards to the human corporeal and sensory, in the form of the Protestant Reformation that was a loss once again of the dignity of what is bodily human (but that, of course, did not completely succeed in imposing itself, as we all know…)

 

Depth: Always in the why behind my physiology probably usually in hindsight; but how I see things is the future of my physiological entity and my behavior, and that which will determine how I react (to what degree and in what degree of restraint); because physiological experience in some ways is the horse without a rider, at least momentarily and if you are not an athlete of life (that is the physical and physiologically rational, at the point of very-close-to-complete-unity; but never quite exactly)…

 

Life feels better when you are the horse (and jockeys are small and insignificant, anyway).

 

 

__________________________

Provable Truths and Galileo: get his original wording in this regard that would seem to suggest he only holds himself to what he can observe, in regards to that which is provably true only in that sense, not intrinsically; that suggests a quality of the instrumental, and not absolute essence….(Hollow Man Conceptualization, once again!)

 

27sep16

But what is absolute essence? For in some sense one can only be the very limitation one is defined by, and in regards to which do we develop our personalities—as athletes, for example—as of your specific physical attributes (height, reach, length of limbs) that necessarily define the physical how-we-do-things of each one of us, that inevitablely has a bearing ultimately on personality (how could it not?); and if indeed human essence is really imposition generally as the physiological will towards the attainment of comfort, it would seem difficult to understand essence in a human and vital extrinsicality…and intrinsic human essence is the physiological need of extrinsic imposition (a hollow man conceptualization, once again!)

 

 

The soul as conceptualization as of a longing for depth; that is a need to conceptually impose depth on physiological experience that we clearly perceive at times as not really having any at all—which frightens the hell out of culture itself, that turns a great part of culture into a permanent process of struggle to impose depth on experience: aesthetic depth, but more importantly—and not just in regards to the West—a conceptual (rational hence logical) depth, and which both become a form of phsyio-psychological reassurance in the power of art (as creator and user/connoisseur) and the broader force and tide of text-based cultures since the origen of written language—that is the power to rationally impose on the world as a Cognitive Potency (Cognipotencia (Eschotado)), and that has the parallel, illusory power of cutting into the nebulousness of physiological experience itself and from the standpoint of individual experience (that is probably the high point of 20^th century art—particularly literature, in Joyce, Döblin, or Updike—of certain and true ableit artistic understanding of the decorum quality of even the conceptual, that thus sets the individual at odds with the edifice of culture itself, leaving her very much out in the cold, so to speak. Simply because individuals have bodies, but society or culture, or the group of my fellows and peers, do not; that is to say, from the standpoint of individual observation as of the bodily—because human groups as categories are necessarily abstract as the only way the individual will ever truly relate the them. Relating physically to the crowd and mob, is impossible as an individual in reagrds to individuals.) Physio-totemic quality of the others in the physiologically rational mind of the individual…

 

 

In regards to all things human and in terms of cultural attitudes, philosophical entities, forces and movements, understanding its real and truer connection to the bodily and how it relates to it—and even despite the message and words of its own propositions—is key to understanding its real anthropological entity and significance: ALWAYS IN THE BODILY!!!! Empirical Science and Religion, for example, are in this sense curiously similar on exactly this point as strategies of bodily removal and exile, in both cases, and in the face of contradiction of the fact that deeper moral impulse is always directly founded in the individual’s sense of bodily vulnerability especially in regards to a mechanics of anthro-biological opprobrium. But, in the extreme worst-case scenario of structural distortion, if you have in fact succeeded in removing the bodily from the real force of ideas and the anthropological, you have eliminated moral foundation itself. And so in a contemporary sense (as seems clearly to be the case here in NEF) there is simply no possibility of ethics the way we understand it, without a greater embrace of in fact the bodily itself.

 

Foundation of Anthropology and Cryptic Nature of Culture: Is because the body cannot be structurally and thoroughly renounced, and this despite the words, message and spirit of a particular geographically, historically determined semiotics; culture is cryptic because, despite a structural semiotics of physiological order that denies the physiologically corporeal and bodily, the structural itself cryptically services the physiologically primary of bodily experience as clearly a form of deeper technical, structural coherence that cryptically centers everything, in fact, on the bodily (that is the true, deeper essence of human groups—in their real survival and necessary invigoration—and is the chief and cryptic defining force of the culturally-posited rational itself)—but all the while without rationally contradicting nor undoing the culturally-posited semiotic; thus true coherence is an overriding, cryptic supervision and balance of cultural space behind the back so to speak of the culturally rational itself—because, yes and perhaps regrettably, physiological reality must inexorably be held in check BY FORCE to some extent (because the physiological nature of people is, at its deepest core rationally opaque—zoomorphic—that is undoubtedly the strong arm element and true muscle man of its own survival—that itself subordinates the rational, as really instrument of its own violent will towards imposition and physical self-preservation, and of which science is just a quite modern, relatively recent avatar of the same original thing albeit a top a never-before-seen power of imposition that is directly—not just potentially—beyond the limits of the anthropological itself—and so inexorably fatal at the species level, and especially if you live in a very sophisticated BUT TOTAL DARKNESS in regards to the mechanics of your own physio-anthropological entity.)

 

 

 

 

 

11) RATIONAL BUT UNINTENTIONAL?

Historically and in anthropological terms, how could logical—hence moral—coherence ever have become the central agglutinating force of the culturally-posited rational and thus of ultimately social experience itself?

And the answer is through religion, because religion is exactly this: a rational, logical imposing on the unknown that perseveres in its rationality only because it cannot be formally contradicted; and the rational perseverance of religion becomes a reversed imposition, back on the individual of a collective, physiologically rational and structural order of anthropological context—through individuality and its physiology of cognitive process, but in regards finally to a human, societal medium of ordered and stable, physiological and physiologically rational possibility.

Because religion depends crucially on its logical posits that become, of course, pretext to really the physiological; and because the physiological substance of human experience is ceaselessly a form of permanent becoming, the general context of religious anthropology leads inexorably to the rational-moral evolution—that is necessarily also the elevation—of those societal experiences within such contexts.

But would it then be a contradiction to suppose that what is originally a form of contrived stability (albeit not exactly intentional) eventually comes to rescind of that very rational mechanism and tool that had in fact allowed for such a societal evolution and ultimate technical elevation, above its own existential circumstances?

Not at all: such an evolving beyond our own limits of in fact our very definition, is perhaps the signature sign and hallmark of humanity and collective human experience.

For the moments in collective human experience in which man has gone beyond the very limits of his own biological and social entity are many—to the point that it constitutes a defining pattern of man’s experience on planet Earth, perhaps the core characteristic of collective, human nature.

The genetic appearance and evolution of opprobrium,

Human group’s staving off of the intra-group force of natural selection,

A culturally rational posting against the physiological as of sedentary and agrarian experience,

The use made of the physiologically rational and semiotic by civilization,

The evolution and rise of physiologically totemic, cognitive process that is the advent of agrarian individuality, and the rational-moral evolution this ignites.

Are all examples of a similar process of consolidation of our own universal, cultural humaneness that becomes in itself the possibility of the struggle that is civilization; that is anthropologically, the balancing of the physiological substance of human experience with collective sedentary circumstances, through the engaged defining of people’s universally rational cognizance.

Hardly, however, could this be understood to have taken place intentionally. But to this day, some 8000 years after agriculture, still are we hamstrung by our limited, conceptually intellectual understanding of our own cognizance—a cognizance and intellectual accumulation which indeed can only be marveled at in regards to its technical production and technology, but has never been able to explicitly differentiate between different types of rational phenomena—or at least this has never become a working tool of popular—nor even public—understanding.

There are, and have always been, universal forms of human rational being that are not conceptually understood, and which nether can we consider intentional—but are still nevertheless logical,

Or did you already know this?

_______________

Art is a form of “non-conceptual” conceptual communication through the aesthetic; the physiological subjection of a consumerist man that turns the culturally-posited rational into simply pretext, is another example of de-conceptualized cultural logic that similarly cannot be seriously understood as irrational—nor even, of course, fully intentional in regards specifically to the motivations of some form of financial-semiotic agency and power elite…

 

12) Exo-Notes from Snell

AIf the rock contributes to the understanding of a human attitude, i.e. if a dead object elucidates animate behavior, the reason is that the inanimate object is itself viewed anthropomorphically; the immobility of the boulder in the surf is interpreted as endurance, as a human being endures in the midst of a threatening situation. It appears, therefore, that one object is capable of casting fresh light upon another in the form of a simile, only because we read into the object the very qualities which it in turn illustrates. This peculiar situation, namely that human behavior is made clear only through reference to something else which is in turn explained by analogy with human behavior, pertains to all Homeric similes. More than that, it pertains to all genuine metaphors, and in fact to every single case of human comprehension.

 

Thus it is not quite correct to say that the rock is viewed anthropomorphically, unless we ad that our understanding of the rock is anthropomorphic for the same reason that we are able to look at ourselves petromorphically, and that the act of regarding the rock in human terms furnishes us with a means of apprehending and defining our own behavior.

 

In other words, and this is all-important in any explanation of the simile, man must listen to an echo of himself before he may hear or know himself.

NOTES

It illustrates or we read into? Physiologically rational imposition of an afferent quality (that ‘we perceive’), but that is also efferent in that we impose upon one thing the very quality we take form another….

What is this but a violence of the mind in a physiologically rational struggle to expression? Metaphors—like the physiologically rational cultural impositions of religion—are instruments also of individual imposition we avail ourselves of whenever we individually need to show somebody something through language and what we mean in regards ultimately to some aspect of reality commonly approachable by all.

 

We impose, first; then that positing imposes on us. That is to say, the efferent is the afferent and this that is knowing ourselves in what we see we are not, which implies we are nothing at all except imposition itself; that is a physiological substance of experience that only would seem to resort tactically to the rational at all, that is in cultural contexts becomes a diachronic structuring of the anthropological resource of rationality itself. And the strut of the physiologically aesthetic to support and complement—to invigorate—rational being, is itself buttressed (and probably in fact more significantly) by the rational. And the question arises in regards to the anthropological that is, which one takes true supremacy?

 

BIn the clearly defined, the typical forms wherein nature has allocated her gifts among the beasts, men find the models for gauging their own responses and emotions; they are the mirror in which man sees himself. Rational thought embarks upon the delineation of a character by partitioning it into various properties and forces. And since reason distinguishes between thing and quality, between matter and force, nothing prevents it from ascribing the ‘same’ quality or power to different character. The earlier mentality, on the other hand, unaware of these distinctions, is fully absorbed by the totality of the image, and thus forced to describe peculiarities by means of comparisions. The sentence: ‘Hector is as a lion,’ besides constituting a comparison, besides focusing the formlessness of human existence against a characteristic type, also signalizes a factual connexion. At least this is true of the older writings. Thus man discovered a solid foundation, not only for his understanding, but for his very existence, in the kinship between himself and the beasts.

 

Homer’s similes assign a role very similar to that of the beasts also to the natural elements. We have already met with the storm, the wave, the rock. These comparisons likewise enable a man to see his real self, by making him turn his attention back upon external nature. Like the description of animals, the pictures of nature are by no means designed only to instill a mood…But above all they are regarded as the conductors of fundamental forces such as are alive also in man. Indeed man realizes the forces within him most distinctly when he musters them to combat the corresponding forces outside him.

 

NOTES

Cultural evolution in the gradual ability of expression thus does not change the original starting point of expressionless, historical physiological substance of experience; this remains and despite the changing contexts that evolution creates for itself (contexts it creates that then afferently impose back on it). And thus the circumstances of agriculture (and what that implies for anthropology) are in some sense a problem compounded by cultural evolution, in the greater capacity of rationally construed expression—that is perhaps a progressive distancing (it evidently has been) of the rational, culturally-construed mind from the deeper (and thus more serious) reality of physiological substance of human experience. And that this were not understood by the culturally rational mind becomes certainly an empirical error. Or; Wight’s understanding of science as an objectifying of the human subject through her observation of the object could also be understood as greater divorce finally from physiological substance and the body—that what allowed Galileo to in fact be empirically observant against the physiologically-semiotic of the structurally anthropological (that is a Renaissance security and celebration of the bodily), eventually drifted headlong into a denial of it, and thus the logical undermining of higher, non-technical forms of understanding (that is a shoddy empiricism, to say the least).

 

 

CThe mythical paradigm, on the other hand, has the advantage that allows a more comprehensive glimpse into human behavior, with all its motives and consequences. To be sure, there are some similes which perform the same service; this happens when Penelope’s tears, as Odysseus, unrecognized by her, reminisces about her husband, are compared to melting snow, or the death of young Euphorbus is likened to the uprooting of a carefully nursed olive tree. But on the whole it can be said that they mythical paradigm is a more suitable instrument for interpreting the fate of man in simple and natural terms. The paradigm traces its origin form the same need which is also at the root of the animal simile, our need for establishing our place in the world order by means of comparisons, in order to arrive at a tolerable degree of certainty and stability. To-day we still experience the same need, but we prefer to be guided by the facts of experience, or by historical parallels, rather than by legends. Goethe’s Antonio says to Tasso when his world is collapsing all around him:

 

And when you seem to lose your whole person,

Compare yourself! Perceive what you are!

 

Whereupon Tasso answers:

 

Your reminder is timely;

Is there no example of history to help me?

Shall I not picture some noble man

Who suffered more than I have ever suffered,

So that I may compare and find myself?

 

Like the animal comparison, the mythical comparison is more than just an agent of impersonal information, for man senses a bond of kinship between himself and the mythic personage. Apart from the fact that the heroes form the genealogical link between gods and men, and that the various clans and noble families regard them as their ancestors, institutions, too, claim them as their founders. Thus the ordinary man is impressed with the conviction that he stands in the stream of a living tradition which springs from the fountain of a higher life: a conviction which is continually reinforced by the aetiological legends chanted at the festivals.

 

_______________________

Apply this to a cinematographic ken of humanity, but in above all the physiological impact of images and that is to some extent an externally verifiable (and so rationally approachable) version of what the human physiologically sensory mind traces—and has always traced—in regards to other non-pictorial forms of representation (i.e. images construed through words as well as the ritually symbolic.) Do we not also feel impressed upon by the conviction that we too stand in the stream of some kind of living tradition which springs from the fountain of a higher life: a conviction which is continually reinforced by a physiologically rational and aesthetic form of aetiological legend, enacted right before our eyes and bigger than life itself–in the images, mannerisms and moral predicaments the actors and actresses of almost a 100 years of film have unto ourselves bourn us, but that is subtly also a form of evasion?

 

DThe striking generic figures of the Olympian gods had provided excellent models for human self-cognition, but the momentous legends of the heroic past supplied an even richer and more varied storehouse form which to equip a fitting portrayal of human nature. These tales are an improvement upon the technique of the simile because they are more flexible in their interpretation, ever ready to adapt themselves to fresh intellectual standards.

 

The gods of Homer had cast off their earlier theriomorphic guise (assuming they had ever gone through such a stage) and had traversed the long road which leads from the rigid tyranny of animal necessity to the amiable freedom of human diversity. Accordingly man, whose cognizance of himself followed the divine pattern, was released from the dead end street of a fixed design. In their myths, too, which were now taken out of storage and refurbished into works of great poetry, we discover a new desire for unfettered fabulation and innovation [EXACTLT WHY?] It was the poetry, and finally Attic tragedy, which through its myths set man on the way to understanding himself. To make clear the strange interrelation between myth and human insight into the self—for, to repeat, it is wrong to see in myth merely a solemn and rather detached recital of the past—we might do well to adduce an analogy form more recent times. Rembrandt’s scenes of the Old Testament permit us to trace the course of the artist’s own life, since the ancient stories become real for him only through the medium of his own experiences; but vice versa the old figures furnish him with a better approach toward his own life. Just so the Greeks discovered the human intellect—by reading it into the myths. The fate of Orestes makes it possible for Aeschylus to perceive the meaning of an ‘action’ in the proper sense of the term; at the same time he is the first to graft this particular element upon the ancient myth. As the echo which precipitates man’s understanding of himself becomes more human, so does man himself; as his thought processes become more rational, the secularization of myth follows suit.

 

EHomer’s myths reveal two features which anticipate the subsequent enlightenment. For one thing, the reflexions which the myths are designed to assist usually produce a greater sense of humility; the majority of the paradigms teach men to realize their status as men, the limitations upon their freedom, the conditional nature of their existence. They encourage self-knowledge in the spirit of the Delphic motto: ‘Know thyself,’ and thus they extol measure, order and moderation. As for the other feature foreshadowing the age of reason, the characters in the paradigms are not demons or bogey-men, but well-known figures with sharply defined contours, either gods or, more often, legendary heroes. Since these figures are tied to a definite locale, and since their genealogy is common knowledge, they stand on the borderline of history or experience; that is, after all, what distinguishes legend and saga from the fairly-tale. It is a characteristic of Greek mythology that the motifs of Maerchen are always re-moulded into the forms of saga. Saga differs from empirical reality in that it furnishes, along with the facts, also their deeper meaning. The later enlightenment argued the meaning which emerges form an event is a matter of human interpretation; but in the saga this meaning asserts itself as valid, a divine component of the tale. In this respect, too, the myth of the Homeric paradigm, and all myth in general, stands half way between the compulsive ideas of the early magic mentality, and the problems and uncertainties of later empirical and historical interpretation.

 

Neither the primitive magic mentality nor the type of thought which follows scientific lines is able to appreciate the nature of the mythical or, for that matter, the historical paradigm. For whatever the differences between them, neither approach admits any comparisons which are not based on an absolute identity. That is to say, both in primitive and in scientific thought all equations are patterned on the comparison of concrete nouns: one lion is like another, one piece of gold is the same as another. In primitive thought, a man may be like a god, or like an animal; in the sciences, only that which really ‘is’ has any validity but what we find in myth, in poetry and in history, namely the establishing of precedents for human actions and fortunes, to give them a broader and more universal significance, is rooted in a totally different category of speech.

NOTES

Man really is not, but rather is a process always of some kind of becoming, that would roughly follow the physiological mode of the substance of human experience; but physiology is a process and transit, constantly from one state and condition to another, and is never just what is. Not static, but permanently in a state of transit and process; but, however, before the real and spatial object of empirical observation, what can possibly become of the human observer in regards to this deeper ethereal quality of human, physiological essence? Clearly the potential for our dehumanization is stark…

 

Just as, among all possible activities, there are a few ideal cases which alone carry a name, and which must serve as our models for defining the countless remaining actions, so there is a limited number of human fates, a few of them historical but most of them fictional, which we may use as standards in the measuring of men’s lives. These archetypal fortunes of the Greek myths are kept alive by the poets, Greek as wall as non-Greek, through ever-changing metamorphoses; and even Thucydides, stripped as his history is of all mythical adornments, considers his book permanently valid, because ‘these and similar things, as are written here, will always happen again’.

 

___________________________

Trapped in my mind—or my physiology? Confined to sex—or imprisoned by the non-absolute nature of physiological experience, that is first and foremost my very own being in becoming, and thus the substance that I am of imposition itself? And civilization as of ever is forms of limitation on myself that then becomes new possibilities of different becomings, evolution and growth, finally.

 

Non-absolute and relative nature of physiological experience: Relative to new states of individual routine and security in the physio-semiotic and physiologically totemic, in regards permanently therefore to changing states of the collectively defined status of group constitution of individuality—that is thus an exo-self conceptualization of individuality (or the cultural, group-defined framework for it) as not individual, but rather structural, and where personality in fact becomes how the bodily physiological self relates to a cultural paradigm of its own individuality.

 

Ontogeny and Phylogeny in regards to two different realms of the physiologically virtual—where, following Snell, man’s own humanity is wrought from those idealizations he is progressively able to read himself into; but that this understanding of self, back once again into the opprobic context of physiologically extrinsic human groups (i.e. the human group of civilization or culture) poses the question as to whether the cultural self becomes also a form of totemic idealization for the individual, as well; that is yet another physiologically totemic context of the tension of becoming, between an ideal of self in regards to the approval—or viability—of it within the group and the group’s rationality and semiotics versus this other part of the self, that is probably the more intrinsic, bodily self and its ontology of vulnerability (that is, of course, the real but cryptic foundation of anthropological functionality, of the human group’s moral possibility and its very rationality.)

 

13) From The Paranoid Style in American Politics, by Richard Hofstadter

Harper’s Magazine, November 1964

 

The paranoid spokesman sees the fate of conspiracy in apocalyptic terms-he traffics in the birth and death of whole worlds, whole political orders, whole systems of human values. He is always manning the barricades of civilization.

 

He constantly lives at a turning point. Like religious millennialists he expresses the anxiety of those who are living through the last days and he is sometimes disposed to set a date for the apocalypse. (“Time is running out,” said Welch in 1951. “Evidence is piling up on many sides and from many sources that October 1952 is the fatal month when Stalin will attack.”)

…

 

This enemy is clearly delineated:

He is a perfect model of malice,

 

a kind of amoral superman

-sinister,

ubiquitous,

powerful,

cruel,

sensual,

luxury-loving.

 

Unlike the rest of us, the enemy is not caught in the toils of the vast mechanism of history, himself a victim of his

past, his desires, his limitations. He wills, indeed he manufactures, the mechanism of history, or tries to deflect the normal course of history in an evil way.

 

He makes crises,

starts runs on banks,

causes depressions,

manufactures disasters,

and then enjoys and profits from the misery he has produced.

 

The paranoid’s interpretation of history is distinctly personal: decisive events are not taken as part of the stream of history, but as

the consequences of someone’s will. Very often the enemy is held to possess some especially effective source of power:

 

he controls the press;

he has unlimited funds;

he has a new secret for influencing the mind (brainwashing) ;

he has a special technique for seduction (the Catholic confessional)

 

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this enemy is on many counts a projection of the self; both the ideal and the unacceptable aspects of the self are attributed to him. The enemy may be the cosmopolitan intellectual, but the paranoid will outdo him in the apparatus of scholarship, even of pedantry. Secret organizations set up to combat secret organizations give the same flattery.

 

The Ku Klux Klan imitated Catholicism to the point of donning priestly vestments, developingan elaborate ritual and an equally elaborate hierarchy.

 

John Birch Society The emulates Communist cells and quasi-secret operation through “front” groups, and preaches a ruthless prosecution of the ideological war along lines very similar to those it finds in the Communist enemy.*

 

Spokesmen of the various fundamentalist anti-Communist “crusades” openly express their admiration for the dedication and discipline the Communist cause calls forth.

 

On the other hand:

 

the sexual freedom often attributed to the enemy,

his lack of moral inhibition,

his possession of especially effective techniques for fulfilling his desires,

 

give exponents of the paranoid style an opportunity to project and express unacknowledgeable aspects of their own psychological concerns. Catholics and Mormons later, Negroes and Jews-have lent themselves to a preoccupation with illicit sex. Very often the fantasies of true believers reveal strong sadomasochistic outlets, vividly expressed, for example, in the delight of anti-Masons with the cruelty of Masonic punishments.…

 

The Double Suffer (and trapped in my physiological mind)

Norman Cohn “the megalomaniac view of oneself as the Elect,

 

wholly good,

abominably persecuted,

yet assured of ultimate triumph;

 

the attribution of gigantic and demonic powers to the adversary;

the refusal to accept the ineluctable limitations and imperfections of human existence,

 

such as transience,

dissention,

conflict,

fallibility whether intellectual or moral;

the obsession with inerrable prophecies. , .

systematized misinterpretations, always gross and often grotesque.”

 

 

This glimpse across a long span of time emboldens me to make the conjecture-it is no more than that-that a mentality disposed to see the world in this way may be a persistent psychic phenomenon, more or less constantly affecting a modest minority of the population.

 

But certain religious traditions, certain social structures and national inheritances, certain historical catastrophes or frustrations may be conducive to the release of such psychic energies, and to situations in which they can more readily be built into mass movements or political parties.

 

In American experience ethnic and religious conflict have plainly been a major focus for militant and suspicious minds of this sort, but class conflicts also can mobilize such energies. Perhaps the central situation conducive to the diffusion of the paranoid tendency is a confrontation of opposed interests which are (or are felt to be) totally irreconcilable, and thus by nature not susceptible to the normal political processes of bargain and compromise.

 

The situation becomes worse when the representatives of a particular social interest perhaps because of the very unrealistic and unrealizable nature of its demands-are shut out of the political process.

 

Having no access to political bargaining or the making of decisions, they find their original conception that the world of power is sinister and malicious fully confirmed.

 

They see only the consequences of power-and this through distorting lenses-and have no chance to observe its actual machinery. A distinguished historian has said that one of the most valuable things about history is that it teaches us how things do not happen. It is precisely this kind of awareness that the paranoid fails to develop. He has a special resistance of his own, of course, to developing such awareness, but circumstances often deprive him of exposure to events that might enlighten him-and in any case, he resists enlightenment.

 

We are all sufferers from history, but the paranoid is a double sufferer, since he is afflicted not only by the real world, with the rest of us, but by his fantasies as well.

 

 

 

14The “Exo Self” Context of Economic Structure (Money)

That is a permanence through time of individual aspiration and the possibility of being by becoming—that becomes an anthropologically structural coherence with human biology and an accommodation of a hollow man conceptualization of the physiological self as perceiver, in accordance with the notion of man´s being in really the physiological substance of his own projection.

 

 

 

15(25nov16)La relación antropológica con la muerte

La genética humana se asienta sobre la amenaza física en todas sus manifestaciones y es esta misma amenaza que impera finalmente sobre los procesos fisiológicamente cognitivos humanos. De ahí que sea la vulnerabilidad física lo que fundamente real pero crípticamente toda posibilidad no solo moral de la cultura, sino que constituye la piedra angular asimismo del hecho racional humano-social, esto es, la base misma de toda racionalidad culturalmente constituida. Y así la estructura antropológica va, sobre este punto al menos, en paralelo con la biología individual humana.

El oprobio biológico humano es esta fuerza animal y verdaderamente zoomorfa que, sin embargo, fundamenta y acaba estructurando la racionalidad cultural, que es en su fondo y siempre, grupal, de tribu e incluso originalmente de jauría.

El llamado destino funerario nuestro se vuelve estructuralmente crucial para nosotros, en todas sus manifestaciones rituales y semióticas-y especialmente las más obvias y directas-por cuanto son momentos y contextos socialmente reconocidos oficialmente que significa también ´racionalmente´ al menos en un sentido socialmente articulado; pero claro, lo socialmente racional no es nunca completamente racional, sino que ha de posicionarse de forma permanente respecto al componente sub racional y culturalmente opaco que es-paradójicamente-la base real de nuestra entidad moral-racional precisamente porque nosotros individualmente (y esto frente a los grupos humanos sus instituciones y los conceptos abstractos que finalmente los definen) nos lo jugamos todo en el cuerpo y la existencia física de carne y hueso. Ni las ideas y ni los grupos humanos a nivel abstracto, no tienen por qué morir nunca, o al menos de forma física, evidentemente, puesto que para el individuo consciente no son nunca entidades físicamente reales*.

Y esto quiere decir, por tanto, que es el hecho físico individual que poseen la entidades solo físicas singulares, singularmente corpóreas lo que da el sentido moral a los grupos, las instituciones humanas colectivas y, también respecto las ideas que estos emplean para la fundición real racional de sí mismos; esto es, aquello que presta el sentido real y moral a las colectividades humanas y dado que intrínsecamente y de por sí no lo pueden ni generar ni siquiera poseer, simplemente porque el sentido moral posible de la vida es solo en su finitud y la precariedad que resulta para el individuo-más fisiológico que racionalmente-el riesgo consustancial a la vida misma que es su pérdida fulminante, e irrevocable declinar, pero

Unicamente respecto a este cuerpo y tejido biológico que soy yo en mi persona física.

Aunque eso sí, la comprensión culturalmente racional que tiene el individuo de sí mismo puede existir en verdad extrínsecamente en las ideas del grupo que llegan a ser, sin embargo, de obligación fisiológica para el individuo y ante la amenaza opróbica de su propia defenestración del grupo o aniquilamiento a manos del mismo-pero en el padecimiento real de su propia carne y tejido corporal.

Pero, como todos sabemos, este carácter extrínseco y socialmente reforzado no obstante de la conciencia individual, constituye un hecho básico de los grupos humanos y antropológicos que es un rasgo imprescindible de su misma viabilidad existencial y colectiva, a través del tiempo, lo que nos trae de nuevo al principio:

La supervivencia antropológica ha estado siempre-y lo sigue estando-en el grupo, pero la capacidad de perdurar de estos depende de una verdadera monarquía a la sombra de la individualidad corpórea y la vulnerabilidad en la que vive, que luego es en sí mismo la verdadera potencia moral posible de las sociedades que fisiosemióticamente se erigen sobre ella.

_________________________

*Esto es, que el individuo pueda sensorialmente percibir en una verdadera dimensión colectiva del grupo, si bien somos fisioeséticamente sensibles a la noción del grupo que como tal-a la manera de una conceptualización fisiológica que es nuestra suseceptibilidad a la imagen mental de los objetos uniformados y agrupados de cualquier naturaleza-no concebimos racionalmente nuestra propia individualidad como en realidad un hecho en sí mismo grupal, sino que es una fuerza fisiológica zoomorfa y de carácter seguramente límbico respecto del sistema nerviosio humano.

O quizá sea que la existencia real física del grupo se limita realmente a la respuesta solo fisiológicamente opróbica del individuo; esto es, desde la óptica individual, ¿qué otra entidad física puede tener el grupo humano o la sociedad sino en la imbricación fisiológica individual con ella? Y así sumamos con ello la respuesta fisiológica individual a las ideas y nociones fisioconceptuales del conjunto específico humano viviente, hallando finalmente una individualidad de proceso, en tensión, multi-polar y jamás ni completo ni del todo fijado como absoluto. Huelga decir, sin embargo, que una visión solo económica de agregados humanos a través del tiempo si puede, efectivamente, limitarse solo al aspecto físico de los conjuntos humanos corpóreos, estos que comen, que se asean y buscan su propia y muy legítima confort físico y personal; pero en este caso resulta evidente que las ideas en las que viven los individuos se vuelven mero pretexto respeto lo físico y los réditos acumulativos que de ello y estructuralmente se derivan, que ya es de por sí una natural y necesaria distorsión estructural antropológica pero que, dejada a su inexorable naturaleza fisiológica no circunspecta-sin supervisión estructural real y necesariamente ejecutiva-es una distorsión antropológica que se convierte en negación de la misma. (Thatcher quotation: “I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”)

 

 

16)Suspension Anthropology and “Exo Suspension” of Self

Much in the way the physical and ideal realms of the anthropological remain permanently tensed, the one in regards to the other, so does the physical side of the self remain permanently in tension with the exo-self idealizations towards which the self is to project its vital will to being, that is in sedentary anthropology an opprobrium-configured context of projection from physical, corporeal vitality towards opprobrium-defined and semiotic idealizations.

 

As if the self were only in essence a process of projection between these two poles (a self that requires of different exo-selves to actually be a self); that is a hollow-man conceptualization in regards also to the psycho-cultural plane of individuality, and thus is also a process of projecting and channeling an energy to be in becoming, as in itself only what it can seek to be in this becoming, as long as it never definitively attains what it seeks…

 

-An exo-self space and context is a physiologically totemic context, that is in fact the essential physiologically rational nature of it and the foundation of a more broadly conceptualized cultural virtuality.

-The physiologically real but fictional, is also morally real in its virtuality, though not—at least initially—politically real.

–Idealization in this context is the very hotspot of biological opprobrium as in fact the real cultural force of definition of those ideals and the reason they are morally real but in a physiologically virtual sense.

-Rational will towards meaning, or physiological force of impetus? That becomes physiologically rational will to imposition versus physio-intellectual force of imposition; and in each case meaning is naturally what human physiological process—in each case—endeavors to find, create, or borrow through (unfailingly) different forms of analogy and perceived juxtapositions.

-If the physiologically real but fictional is morally real, the foundation of the rational itself is also to be found in the same realm of the physiologically sensorial.

–Sensory Physiology is conceptualized category as component of human nature and comprises the following functions of human perception: The aesthetic, The rational, and Opprobrium; is conceptually in opposition to a physical or metabolic physiology in regards to thoroughly non-rational or unconscious physical process.

 

 

17.The Physical versus only The Physiologically Real

1.Phonetics are like physically real pretext to the physiologically semiotic artifice of phonology and language itself.

2.Much in the way ritual becomes a form of physical rationality against physiological non-definition;

3.Both in this way work to define and structure physiological experience that requires what constitutes rational pretexts which are functionally rational essentially because they define physiological experience by engaging it (as of whatever logical reason or only pretext)—that is thus the very definition and limitation of that physiological experience.

4. The exo self nature of man is thus because of his need to be by becoming that is itself physiological process, in all its aspects and at all levels????????

 

Ritual: Physiological snapshots that acquire the functionality of the rational in ritual’s power to impose on, limit, and thereby define physiological experience; culturally physiological experience, because it is group-shared and self-imposed by the group, is also culturally rational experience because it is group-based, as indeed something like the phonetics of cultural (group) meaning and experience; ritual is physiological experience that is comprehensible (perceived as logical) by more than the just the individual herself; and this to the extent that cultural integration (‘identity of belonging’) is the individual’s comprehension of self actually through the group’s own posits and understanding; that is in essence and to some degree a physiologically extrinsic defining of self (which human personality, because it is in fact indissociably corporeal and singular, will then relate to opprobically, from the singularly physical-corporeal to what then constitutes a group or culturally-defined exo self of physiologically totemic entity and process.)

 

The chief anthropologically structural function of such a group-defined exo self element is to oppose and safeguard against individual, non-mediated physiological experience—but not by eliminating it altogether, given that structurally rational viability and definition is possible as long as the individual lives her integration into group experience as a cryptic physiological defiance of it.

 

In this way, it is the physicality of individual experience—as in fact the foundation itself of the moral and rational—that ends up opposing the culturally ethereal and non-physical entity of group constitution and identity; as a dialectic of permanently charged hidden tension and mutual definition by opposition, towards ultimately the group’s perseverance through time.

 

And thus does the physical entity of individual experience become tether to the cultural artifice of physiologically rational ascription of meaning by the group, that is the very safeguarding against excessive physiologically extrinsic removal of physiologically corporeal reality,

 

Only the physical individual is the real bearer of.

 

 

18. Physically Different Individuals Become Groups in the Ideas that Unite Them (In what other way could they come together?)

Except that fiercely resilient human groups cannot actually be fiercely resilient only in just conceptualizations; or rather, conceptualizations only really agglutinate groups made up of physically different individuals if those conceptualizations are physiologically binding for each and every single individual. Thus can biological opprobrium be considered as something of an evolutionary anachronism in regards to the history of the human species, for while physiological individuality as really itself a product of the group was crucially successful for group survival in pre-agrarian contexts, our opprobrium-constricted individuality of today is probably to be considered—in the sum of all things considered and to the extent that is possible—as something closer to a handicap and obstacle, ultimately, to that same survival today.

_______________________________

Understand Nazi Germany from the standpoint of the opprobic!

 

 

 

 

19.AMANPOUR (CPJ) 22NOV16

-Post-truth: Post values

–Campaign in poetry, govern in prose

 

Physio-Semantic Shift and the Cool Hand Tyrant Play:

First the media is accused of inciting,

Then sympathizing,

Then associating;

Then finally accused of being full-fledged terrorists and subversives:

[Then you get arrested.

(Or Black-Oped)]

 

An insidious “creep of extremism”

Historical process of the normalization of bigotry

 

(People should speak out against bigotry, unless the center holds against the insidious creep of extremism)

What begins by biting your tongue for political expediency

—or out of social awkwardness—

Soon becomes complicity with something far worse.

 

End note and words

Young people (and not so young!) have the moral mandate to get into good trouble; so lets get out there and try to remain relevant; and let us not be turkeys voting for Thanksgiving! …Happy Thanksgiving.

_________________________

Social awkwardness is actually key to the phenomenon of physiologically semantic shift, in regards to human groups, and not just simply a circumstance of it. For it is the group that actually defines what it means to be an individual in regards to specific human groups, in specific geographic delimitations, bound by a particular cultural rationality, language and semiotic conceptualizations. An individuality that belongs by opposing and in defiance is of course the real force of optimum, structurally anthropological balance and viability; and an ultimately tensed conformity is what this really means. But defiance is actually the motor of conformity for all singular bodily individuals, in regards to a physical experience that is uniquely singular for all individuals, but that historically-anthropologically only survives because of the group. And the paradox is in the dichotomy of mind and body, or physical experience versus identity and the rational understanding of it; and the individual is physically singular, but can only really exist conceptually—rationally—in the ideas of the group; but, alas, groups do not really exist corporeally, only individuals do…

Social awkwardness is key because this is exactly how the conceptualizations of the group (its postulated and cultural rationality) become relevant and physiologically binding for the individual. And it is that what you are depends on what the group knows you to be; that is to say, on what you physiologically and physio-rationally embrace as the group’s acceptance of you—or at least its not open hostility towards you, that is your accommodation of your own self-understanding to what you feel (i.e ‘physioloigcally know’) the others will at least tolerate; that does not mean you simply comply—in fact always to some extent this means you will defy, but in a way that is ultimately on at least the limits of acceptability, principally because it is non-violent. For only can you actually be, rationally and as a conceptualization, in those ideas the others hold themselves to—and in the way your personality, as of your own physical experience, relates to those semiotics, and then in the positions you ultimately take of conformity and defiance in regards to that physiologically semiotic structure.

This also means that socially structural viability necessarily consists of different individuals in different subgroups, on different points of a defiance-conformity continuum in regards to a particular culture’s posted rationality and physio-semiotics.

Because both defiance and conformity each acquire their own culturally functional, separate entity—in their own physiologically construed, rational entities or narratives, that of course end up staking the better part of what they are in what they are not, but are opposed to and are in themselves the absence of; that is, their own self-conceptualization in or because of their opposite.

Despite, however, the multiple points of individuality in regards to such a continuum, defiance and conformity are in fact patrimony to all corporeal individuals in different degrees and to different extremes, basically because individuality is only physiologically understood (‘felt’ ‘experienced’) as individual, when in fact anthropologically individuality is a culturally specific paradigm of singular bodily being, towards ultimately the structural viability, invigoration and survival of the group.

The term creep in regards to a progressive shift, drift and semantic or conceptual syncretism ultimately towards the justification on the part of power of more decisive political action, can refer only to the physiological circumstances and substance of human experience, that is the true entity behind only an illusory conceptualization of the rational; for the culturally rational exists in itself as a form of opposition to the physiological, that which the group must impinge upon in individuals towards its own possibility of being—in the only way the group can actually exist, that is, in its physiologically semiotic entities and conceptualizations that, by means of biological opprobrium, are physiologically binding for the bodily vulnerable individual.

Because, following Margret Thatcher, it must be finally agreed upon that indeed there is no such thing as society—but rather only a force of genetic-based, physiological and zoomorphic violence the individual inexorably must define herself through, secretly and in the unspoken turmoil of what is really a legacy of the killing fields of a pre-agrarian, human biology. Society is thus only that which ultimately saves the individual from her anthropological self, for permanently is she compelled to conformity through defiance, and to defy as way of ultimately belonging:

And so yes, society is only its rationality, that is of course ethereal, anyway and so exists really only in the physiologically rational experience of the individual and her mind;

But similarly, if one politically ignores the non-corporeal (because it simply is very easy to do, for it does not physically exist), only physical human experience ends up really mattering, that ultimately becomes an experience that cannot conceptualize itself, which in itself is not necessarily a negative circumstance in regards a corporate-financial dominance of human, physiological aggregates over time and the anthropologies they comprise, that is of course the real unaddressed foundation of contemporary consumer society experience, anyway.

And Thatcher—or her bankers and financial ideologues—meant that, too, no doubt!

 

 

20. NOTES21nov16 Canetti and Crowds

Before man was able to read himself into his divinities (Snell), he read himself into what he saw in the world around him, especially in the animated figures of living animals; and the first step towards an exo-self understanding of his own entity and being, might well be posited first in his observation of the animals, as a direct way of knowing himself in what he sees he is not. But quite quickly, however, he would find himself obstructed from further development of his own self-understanding in the very foil and exo-self object he was relating to, in its obvious limitations that become an impossibility to a further knowing of himself; and so because such a greater, superior foil to which he could physio-totemically relate to was not available, he had to posit it himself, utilizing the unknown as in fact his canvass on which to paint what he could in regards to logical notions of something obviously quite superior to himself (for what else could explain his presence among the animals, but miserably alone in his superiority over them?) And so because from the animals—and nature itself—he got no answer, nor even a significantly purposed and intelligent response at all, he found himself in the need to create something superior to himself, not really in his own image, but rather in better and enhanced image of himself, so that historically and in terms of cultural evolution, he could actually become that superior being, or at least partially and to whom he initially related only totemically out of his own physiologically rational need to transcend in fact his own physiological experience (what is rationality in a cultural sense but a contrast to and containment—a transcending—of the physiological?) as a pillar of social order, of course, but perhaps also a form of relief from the repetition, redundancy and entrapment that is his only physiological substance of experience. Thus is the idea of transcendence, from this standpoint, a form of integration and embrace of the different components of the self (cultural, physical/physiological, and physiologically rational) that is the resource of meaning and its adscription specifically to the physiological, and that could be understood as a ‘saving of man from his physiological self’—by in fact imposing ultimately on him a conceptual understanding of himself, and to whatever degree of empirical accuracy (that does not necessarily have to be at all, but rather only anthropologically effective!)

_________________________

And it is agriculture that would seem to propel human beings down the road of physiological transcendence (i.e. ‘into to a culturally-posited rationality and semiotics’), and at least certainly as an outlet for the very impetus of humanity’s own physiological nature that, in the context of sedentary experience proper, inexorably had to fictionalize itself through man’s hypostatization of his own physio-semiotic projection; through no other means, in fact, could sedentary human groups keep themselves together once they no longer lived in actual physical movement and flight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

INDEX

1) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida

2) Culpables-Responsables

3)Rational Imposition VERSUS Religious Imposition

4) Individual Physio-Bodily morality VERSUS Big Systemic Agency

5) The Opprobrium Matrix and The Bodily Vulnerable Heroes it Inexorably Produces

6) Big Systemic Philosophy

7) The Physiologically Cognitive Mode of only Empirical Science

8) The Anthropological Self VERSUS Personality

9) The soul as conceptualization as of our longing for depth

10) TURN SURFACE INTO DEPTH:

11) Religious origin of quotidian delight and its connection to 1)Science; 2)Capitalism-Consumerism

12) In regards to all things human

13) IMPERIAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL FREEDOM, IN ORTEGA Y GASSET

14) Decorum Anthropology is Cultural Virtuality

15) Ortega Y Gasset y los estados de suspension antropologicos

16) The Conversion of Physical Violence into Physiologically Rational Violence

17) The Conundrums of Anthropology

18) Opprobic games and rational subversion: COINTELPRO

19.The Culturally Rational versus Physiological Freedom

 

 

 

1) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida   [30aug16]

Películas en las que se ven criminales urdiendo su planes mafiosos de la consecución de dinero pero comunicándose por teléfono móvil, que en otros tiempos se llamaban teléfonos celulares que quiere decir conceptualmente que cada telefono es una unidad atómica de un cuerpo-o sistema y red-mas grande y extendido; lo cual denota, empero indirectamente y muy a lo callado, que de hecho se pueda concebir este contexto humano de comunicación del lenguaje en si y en realidad como un sistema técnica y lógicamente bajo el control de otros; todo lo cual, si lo vas pensando con un poco de esfuerzo y rigor, apunta a la muy posible situación de que actividades ilícitas de mayor caldo y enjundia son del todo inconcebibles y dado que los actores humanos integrantes del sistema a nivel de usuario no deben considerar lógicamente que cuenten en realidad con privacidad alguna, pues incluso con solo el metadata la realidad socio-estructural de la entidad individual humana queda totalmente expuesta a la comprensión de terceros; pero que muy lógicamente tampoco no debe descartarse que de hecho el contenido real de las conversaciones también esté simplemente a la disposición de los mismos operarios, y dado que estos no tienen finalmente porqué dar cuenta de nada de lo que hacen a nadie y ni siquiera judicialmente, en vista de la realidad evidente (publica y periodística) de un uso solo cosmético y abiertamente fantoche de las instancias judiciales norteamericanas hacia la consecución de una cobertura propia solo de jure, ilusoria y patentemente falsa. Sin embargo, el nivel de usuario fisiológico y fisiológicamente libre permanece naturalmente y siempre que la comprensión tecnica-racional del individuo no vaya minando esa sensación de libertad, que es una libertad humana pero solo en la vertiente fisiológica de la misma; pero que solo con la sospecha incipiente racional y bien fundada, la experiencia libre pero solo fisiológica se va enfermando, dudando de sí misma y torciéndose. Que quiere decir que no es preciso que la NSA ni confirme ni niega nada, finalmente…

 

Pero de más importancia es el problema de la representación cinematográfica y que, como desde mediados de los noventa es impossible que una banda de butroneros como el de Robert De Niro en Heat (1995) pudiera de hecho existir-salvo en el caso de que se hubieran servido de palomas mensajeros para comunicarse-su hazañas épicas cinematográficas de una individualidad que intente imponerse (que es la función propia antropológica de la individualidad, en un sentido muy real) resultan del todo increíbles, del todo irreales.

 

Y un problema que se constata en lo representacional respecto al equilibrio antropológico está pues anunciado.

 

El problema: la destrucción del contexto humano del oprobio biológico individual, pues la naturaleza social de moralidad como dilema moral que el individuo ha de llevar a cuestas respecto a sí mismo, solo es posible desde un mínimo de intimidad individual. Que quiere decir que se sustituye finalmente una fisiología individual de dilema moral como libertad por la obediencia, a secas y determinada exclusivamente por el terror del individual a las consecuencias ultimas de ser un individuo.

 

2) http://www.caffereggio.net/2016/08/31/culpables-y-responsables-de-oscar-sanchez-alonso-en-el-pais/

Por eso, aunque se entiende lo expresado por Máximo, no puede negarse lo obvio:

algunos se habrán cruzado de brazos;

algunos habrán incurrido en injustas generalizaciones;

algunos se habrán rasgado las vestiduras de forma sectaria y maniquea;

algunos se habrán hecho cómplices del desfalco económico e institucional;

algunos habrán cultivado una labor democrática de mayor madurez y calibre

… Cada cual tendrá que responsabilizarse de lo que le corresponda, pero en conjunto, como sociedad, claro que hemos hecho.

 

Las tragaderas de quita y pon, y la indignación a tiempo parcial

son dos caminos en los que lo relevante no es lo acontecido, sino la autoría de lo que acontece. Y esos hábitos no solo se estilan en el seno de tal o cual partido, sino que también se frecuentan entre aquella ciudadanía que decidió ejercer de hooligan (contra el adversario) y de clac (ante los que cataloga como suyos). Llevarse las manos a la cabeza solo ante las siglas ajenas, y mirar para otro lado cuando el desbarre es de los propios, resulta la antítesis de lo cívico.

 

Por supuesto que es preciso distinguir entre culpables y responsables.

No es lo mismo robar, que votar a ladrones, por poner un ejemplo.

Y no es lo mismo votar a alguien del que desconocemos su desempeño ilícito, que reincidir en el voto cuando ya se ha constatado su palabrería o su abyección.

 

 

Siempre hay gradaciones, sí. Pero lo innegable es que a la ciudadanía también le salpica una responsabilidad.

 

Puede resultar muy pinturero eludir nuestras responsabilidades; pero esos escapismos… nunca pintan bien.

 

 

Escapismos nunca pintan bien es sin embargo el caracter críptico de la cultura y los espacios antropológicos, pero ¿de qué exactamente hemos de huir y escapar? De una gravedad y presion atmósferica excesivas de comprension racional, pero respecto la libertad nuestra precisamente fisiológica.

 

Porque lo racional efectivamente define colectiva y civilmente las posibilidades nuestras del ser y estar fisiologicos (que se dice una fisiología semitoicamente definida, por el bien finalmente civil de todos, y que se inicia al decir de Victor Gomez Pin precisamente en el lenguaje, en sí mismo un espacio fisológico al mismo tiempo que semoticamente racional como orden y patron, que todo individuo del grupo comparte al menos mínimamente, que es orden físio-semiótico y culturalmente racional porque compartido.) Pero la racionalidad en este sentido normativo y cultural (necesariamente) puede desde luego verse trastocada en el conocimiento de verdades superiores, que técnica y empírcamente mayores resultan no obstantes nefastos respecto las posibilidades físio-semióticas de los indiviudos, y dañinos por tanto, a la misma estructuralidad humana antropologica.

 

Todo lo cual desmboca en la difícil situación en que el tener razón es estar tremendamente equivocado.

 

Porque la libertad humana antropológica es la libertad fisiológica del ser y estar, cíclica y alternativamente en estados de vigorización y reposo; entre puntos siempre estáticos y estables, pero que desembocan en el  inexorable tránisto fisiológico hacia nuevos estados de estímulo. Porque en cierto sentido, la libertad fisiológica de invigoración vital es respecto lo racional en sí; una racionalidad propuesta que los contextos agrícolas han rentabilzar en pos de la posibilidad social, colectiva y estable, que la viabilidad funcional, estrucutral humana y antropologica ha de infundir luego con la crucial tonificación fisiológica, que es el estado biologico propio de la experiencia humana, sin duda, hasta que el cuerpo lo aguante-,

 

Equilibrio antropológico es pues precisamente respecto a estos dos ámbitos de lo racional culturalmente compartido, culturalmente impuesto al individuo (mediante el oprobio biologico); frente a la tonificación del estimulo fisiológico que es lo unico que da finalmente el sentido causal y profundo de aquél, haciéndonoslo de hecho supportable.

 

Claramente, entonces, una agresion racional (ahora empírica y fundamentada) respecto lo solo cultramente semiótico significa de cualquier forma un trastocamiento del orden lógico cultural (simbólico, si se prefiere, aunque el término correcto sin duda es semiótico por cuanto se refiere a la estructuralidad humana antropologica, no la naturaleza de lo percibido).

 

¿Qué hacer, pues?

 

A pintar, ‘stá claro.

 

 

 

3)Rational Imposition VERSUS Religious Imposition

Believes it lives in a perpetual moving beyond the culturally standard, culturally delimited/Seeks to preserve the impossibility of contradiction as key point of strength of its semiotics and posits.

 

Discovery becomes a physiology in itself that similarly turns culturally-rational posits likewise into simply functional, physiological pretext / Is a rationally-based pretext to the physiological.

 

Also opprobrium-based, group extension / Opprobrium-based mechanism of individual-binding, physiological relevance.

 

 

 

_____________________________

The Danger of the Self-Evident is that self-evident truths are not at all truths of discovery (although their origins can be rationally understood or construed) but rather tend to find their chief justification in their physiologically functional entity.

 

ART

 

SCIENCE                                                   RELIGION

 

[INDIVIDUALITY]

 

______________________________________

And the physio-mental process of language itself!

 

Individuality itself as art?

Parallel to a process of culture itself as a subject/object relationship with its own posits and ideals, so too does individuality propose and then physiologically relate to an ideal of itself, as  a necessary, external entity it can know itself off of, back on to itself that is not that ideal, but rather only—but significantly, crucially—a living and permanent tension towards becoming that ideal (that, as an ideal, implies the physiologically totemic self is indeed of its own deeper and independent entity; that this ideal is me in my will to be—that forcibly determines me as something more than that ideal—and thus it is ” I” as a certain aspirer to it; and the ideal becomes I tool I use towards a becoming me that indeed makes me always something else, something even greater in my initial and permanent will to be than the ideal itself.

 

 

 

4) —–Individual Physio-Bodily morality——-

                       

VERSUS

                                                     

—-Big Systemic Agency of the super power self—

 

 

1. —–Individual Physio-Bodily morality——-

That is in fact the true, underlying foundation of any and all morality;

-That is a physically vulnerable self thus equipped to empathize with the physical experience and predicament of others;

-That is thus likewise capable of transiting from one’s own physical self to also the physiologically totemic and conceptual dignity of others (not just their physical dignity).

-The individual’s knowing some degree of physical vulnerability is thus the key to civil and civilized anthropological, systemic stability; opprobrium itself becomes in fact almost ineffective if the individual becomes too physically remote from need.

-Remoteness from physical need and self-entity becomes a moral ineffectiveness that is also a loss of higher rational acumen.

-And loss of rational capacity towards physio-conceptual coherence of the individual is thus similarly a moral defect and problem. Or;

–Physio-Anthropological Complacency can—in its distortion—become a form of moral defect, decadence and decline (essentially, the thesis and dilemma of Spengler)

 

 

2. —-Big Systemic Agency of the super power self—

-That is necessarily based on some degree of deceit;

-That is functional only as long as it is deceitful —that it to say, the self-understanding of the power self (in this context) is viable only in so much as she does not fully believe her own legitimacy (that puts her morality in her very knowing herself to be in some degree deceitful).

-Thus, when physiological impetus undoes this sense of cynical self-understanding and entity (that is however still moral in its immorality), physio-semiotic, cultural structure is jeopardized—in that all moral bearing* is lost to the physiological itself and at the highest, most structurally significant level of the social (the structurally and Macro economic)

–Spengler’s Dilemma!

 

 

 

________________

*Moral Bearing in a proacitve sense, but not in regards to culturally moral (opprobrium-based) coercion; and in specifically the fact that the law is somewhat of a rationalized form of the culturally opprobic and at least in the way individuals end up relating physio-rationally to it. For as a tool also of physiologically rational invigoration of anthropological experience, the law becomes physiologically relevant and binding for the culturally semiotic, opprobrium-based self.

 

 

 

5) Opprobrium Matrix and The Bodily Vulnerable Heroes It Inexorably Produces

Otherwise we would not be able to tolerate

 

culturally physiological,

physio-cognitive and rational

stability itself!

 

 

And the cultural and semiotic, anthropological matrix survives in effect because of the challenge brought to it—the physiological challenge of individuals and in their own physiologically rational imposition. Individuality is thus the real cryptic monarch of moral possibility in regards to the culturally structural and anthropological; or as a seemingly imposed coincidence—roughly—of individual physiologically rational imposition that, as of agriculture can only be understood as the physiological projection towards culturally imposed ideals the individual lives in. And personality is thus the individually idiosyncratic mode of that projection—probably necessarily as some form of ultimately structurally compliant defiance.

 

And so among these ideals of the culturally structural itself—paradoxically—is the very physiologically rational mode of the hero, against the opprobic. And thus does representation of the anthropologically structural also contain a form of physiological antidote to its own force of stability albeit in the ideal and fictionally physiological—that nonetheless is physiologically real and thus potentially effective in the worst of all possible scenarios that is the loss itself of culturally structural momentum.

 

Because when, for whatever reason, culture cannot impose itself, the physiologically real hero comes to the physically real fore, front and center—towards a potentially new founding of further cultural possibility, once again and into the future.

 

And is thus the physiologically—but not physically—real is the background of working, cultural rationality itself, on perhaps a form of standby and shadow alert, in case she is called back into real and physically moral service, once again.

 

But in both cases, the human group is ultimately secure in at least its diachrony, through time.

 

_________________________

Moral Man Immoral Society (1932)

 

 

6) Big Systemic Philosophy

And perhaps to say one has a lot of philosophy, means that individual is more physio-rationally attune to the diachronically abstract—that is an understanding of self outside the self, beyond just the physiological perception and condition of bodily individuality! And Sacrifice Anthropology (that is of course also Exiled-Man Anthropology), in Oriental culture becomes a working, functionally equivalent Nirvana Anthropology as ideal, that effectively sees the physiologically primary, bodily self held in check under a conceptual and semiotic edifice of physiologically rational discipline, rigor—and also surely tolerance; that in both cases and in regards to both cultural spheres, sees culture in the very possibility of in some way overcoming the physiologically primary and non-mediated—that is, finally and in all cases, a rational force of will and conceptual positing against the physiological itself that effectively must be understood as an alternate physiological proposal in itself (that naturally relies intensely on a rational, conceptual—and narrative—understanding of what it seeks above all NOT TO BE!)

(11sep16)

 

 

 

7) The Physiologically Cognitive Mode of only Empirical Science: The Historical End of the Renaissance and Renaissance Man in Francis Bacon [Science in A Renaissance Society (1972), W.P.D. Wightman]

 

[QUOTE] By assuming a radical dualism between observed nature and Man’s self-consciousness he was able to sketch the outline of a possible explanation of the former in purely mechanical terms. By thus submitting the whole of the observable world, including Man’s organs of thought and feeling, to the immense power of mathematical formulation he gave succeeding generations the means of seemingly unending progress in the attainment of the mastery of Man over things; but at the cost of Man’s cosmical alienation. It was another Frenchman* who saw that ‘science without conscience is no other than ruin of the soul’. Four centuries later we can see that it may be the ruin of the world. [END QUOTE]

 

A physio-psychology of power that is the objectification of reality—really, empirically and scientifically—through the objectification in the same moment of the human observer…Becomes something of an anthropological calamity when Man must depend on his own sense of power as absolute and cannot free himself, therefore, of his own physiology, psycho-physiology and physio-rationality; because he ends up living in distortion in regards to his physiological physicality—that is in fact his very rational nature, that is distortion as a form of radical dualism; because subjectivity cannot in fact be disassociated from the bodily (even in regards to the physiologically rational); and thus an elimination of the subjective becomes itself a mechanism of bodily removal, much in the way culture effects the same process—but in the case of science, it is truly a radical elimination, for the key and underlying root of human, moral impulse is in and because of physical, bodily experience (that only in one’s own sense of bodily self and vulnerability, can one regard just this in others). But the scientific observer, through a convention of elimination of subjectivity, is objectified herself by the very object of analysis; inversely, from object back to subject-agent. And the greatest hell man can know is his own dehumanization that is always a loss of his own subjectivity, in one way or another (and even its positive forms of wholesome restraint, because freedom in a collective sense is actually individual limitation.) Thus like all human phenomena, a warped distortion beyond, finally, man’s ability to revise his own conduct, is the problem; particularly because the physiological nature of human experience lends itself to this. A power rationality as absolute that seldom is capable of understanding the causality of its own physiology, and at the initiating point of procedural imposition. That is thus a rationality that does not concern itself with its own physiology, and so a form in itself finally of physiological removal, along the same structural lines generally of Crucifixion Anthropology, and so not surprisingly would tend not to regard the physiological reality of experience, perception and interpretation of others (logically because it renounces just this in itself).

 

And like a man who has no deeper, serious regard for his wife (because she is just supposed to be there, anyway.)

 

_____________________________________

* François Rabelais (ca. 1493 – April 9 1553)

 

 

 

8) The Anthropological Self VERSUS Personality

[Vicarious models of physio-identity formation and experimentation: because as of agriculture I live necessarily in the projection of my physiological being (that is, in regards to this that I am and call myself), I also already live vicariously in regards to some form of ideal or model—quite usually imposed to some degree by opprobrium and moral sense—that is a model situationally and especially at first to some degree outside myself and extrinsic to me (that is, of course, the whole point of anthropological, semiotic rection of the individually physiological, anyway); and thus am I also prone to other and new physiological models—as ideals, when I come across them, or in regards to new physiological experiences that befall me (because surely even without a semiotic, rational idea and ideal as that which I shall be in my physiological projection of myself, new physiological experiences might also dictate, as of simply experience itself, new forms of physiologically construed identity arising through experience, first and not as the result of moral ideals or the opprobrium-based pressure of the moral; which is, of course, how the shadow abusers of contemporary political realism and manipulation see individuality, as exactly that which is physiological vulnerability through experience itself (through rape and murder, for example) that physiologically grows on the individual as of initiate and tentative, criminal experience (very probably because shadow abusers of  typically American and Anglo-Saxon Intelligence Communities are physiologically accustomed themselves to abusing their citizens, usually—but not necessarily only—through ideas and the semiotic, as the de facto guardians of physio-semiotic and financially aggregate, human order of their societies.) And so would not likely believe very seriously in real independence of individuality itself, anyway. That is, they impose what is their on mediocrity—and from their own position of negligent, decadent advantage over their fellow man—on others. [Farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrt!]

 

Thus the human proposal of the divine becomes also human, physiologically rational expanse, in regards to which human beings totemically relate in their own physiological projection and identity, that is the very possibility of a vicariously lived, divine-like experiencing of the dignity of the civilized individual (as of really a civilized because god-fearing self that is thus equipped suddenly to regard that same dignity in other human beings); and this in a culturally-structural, anthropological sense, off of which new spaces must also and eventually be physiologically sought, physio-semiotically wrought—such as the dignity of the body sensual of the Italian Renaissance that was perhaps the real beginning of science and behind the possibility itself of somebody like Galileo (who himself is as of the human corporeal in his very methodology and foundation of our contemporary understanding of objectivity and the empirical). And this historically, until something of a new Dark Age came along, at least in regards to the human corporeal and sensory, in the form of the Protestant Reformation that was a loss once again of the dignity of what is bodily human (but that, of course, did not completely succeed in imposing itself, as we all know…)

 

Depth: Always in the why behind my physiology probably usually in hindsight; but how I see things is the future of my physiological entity and my behavior, and that which will determine how I react (to what degree and in what degree of restraint); because physiological experience in some ways is the horse without a rider, at least momentarily and if you are not an athlete of life (that is the physical and physiologically rational, at the point of very-close-to-complete-unity; but never quite exactly)…

 

Life feels better when you are the horse (and jockeys are small and insignificant, anyway).

 

 

__________________________

Provable Truths and Galileo: get his original wording in this regard that would seem to suggest he only holds himself to what he can observe, in regards to that which is provably true only in that sense, not intrinsically; that suggests a quality of the instrumental, and not absolute essence….(Hollow Man Conceptualization, once again!)

 

 

 

9) The soul as conceptualization as of our longing for depth

That is a need to conceptually impose depth on physiological experience that we clearly perceive at times as not really having any at all—which frightens the hell out of culture itself, that turns a great part of culture into a permanent process of struggle to impose depth on experience: aesthetic depth, but more importantly—and not just in regards to the West—a conceptual (rational hence logical) depth, and which both become a form of phsyio-psychological reassurance in the power art (as creator and user/connoisseur) and the broader force and tide of text-based cultures since the origen of written language—that is the power to rationally impose on the world as a Cognitive Potency (Cognipotencia (Eschotado)), and that has the parallel, illusory power of cutting into the nebulousness of physiological experience itself and from the standpoint of individual experience (that is probably the high point of 20^th century art—particularly literature, in Joyce, Döblin, or Updike—of certain and true ableit artistic understanding of the decorum quality of even the conceptual, that thus sets the individual at odds with the edifice of culture itself, leaving her very much out in the cold, so to speak. Simply because individuals have bodies, but society or culture, or the group of my fellows and peers, do not; that is to say, from the standpoint of individual observation as of the bodily—because human groups as categories are necessarily abstract as the only way the individual will ever truly relate the them. Realting physically to the crowd and mob, is impossible as an individual in reagrds to individuals.) Physio-totemic quality of the others in the physiologically rational mind of the individual…

 

 

10) TURN SURFACE INTO DEPTH: The rational method can thus be understood as partly because of (?) artistic endeavor of the Renaissance and its new, intense delight with perception itself (and its plasticity); the possibility of observation was itself due to a turn of the mind away from Christian-medieval postied depth beyond an awful surface of experience that simply had to be transited through phsyio-conceptually (or an impetus to transform it into such because of its misery) that later becomes a physiological rebirth of delight with the observable, as physio-aesthetics of surface (that perhaps really finds depth in the pictorial and in perception of images precisely in the physiological impact perception has on the eye of the beholder; as a refined form of simply pleasure and invigorated civilized forms of physiological experience, eventually endeavor.)

 

And so sequentially a methodology of observation becomes possible that, inversely, seeks a form of depth once again in the observable as no longer just appearance, surface and superficiality; that is a plastic origin—and culturally—of the possibility of Science itself, specifically in the scientific way of observing. And so appearance and surface become once again a now scientific form of depth, in regards to the production of rational rules of understanding the natural world; but that itself becomes once again a depth of only the rationally physiological, finally, in its very inability to give deeper human meaning to really anything at all, that is the fundamental crux of its very nature (science) as elevating the quality of material, bodily experience, while at the same time ultimately degrading it, in its (Science) deeper and very much complete divorce form the implications of physiological experience of the bodily self with almost no rational approach to it at all—because in the heat of its (Science) fantastic power of technological imposition, it has very little means of preventing itself form becoming as well something like the purely physiological.

 

Orange

Because it would seem to lend itself almost not all to the real act and process of founding a solid and culturally useful understanding of specifically the implications of human physiological experience. It simply ignores this, except in regards to the exploiting of people’s physiological-psysical nature in an economically structural sense, and in regards to a military-financial intelligence community control of phsyio-semiotic order: the turning of people’s physiological nature against them is in fact extremely useful in this context, no doubt, and as long its understanding goes no further than the use made of it as an instrument of cultural contention, containment and definition towards ultimately just systemic, financial order.

 

Technology, yes; but for really what purpose?

 

Science should have had a better answer to that, but it doesn’t; and in fact to this day relies falsely on the realm of the spiritual for any and all higher forms of understanding (outrageously!)

 

____________________________

MONKEY MAN And so perhaps the reason science cannot ultimately replace religion (at least in regards to the Anglos-Saxon, English language-based, cultural realm of socio-political, cultural definition) is that it came itself into being auxiliary to the Judeo-Christian spiritual definition of anthropological stability; that it could morally detach itself from human reality because of a Christian Crucifixion Anthropology that sees science in a curious coincidence in its own technical methodology of annulling the subjective with a similarly Christian denial of the physical (particularly in its Protestant variation ultimately); in which science is able to in fact decline any higher form of ultimate human meaning precisely because it could—because another physio-semiotics of Christian anthropological stability through a culturally cryptic exile mechanism of primary individual physiology was already culturally operative; and so because of the fantastic results of the empirical, there would seem initially to be no reason at all to actually revise or seriously understand its own deficiencies, and given that ultimate anthropological stability was in fact the result of another realm of semiotic force and foundation; as kind of negligence, finally, and over the last 200 years of science that only had to come to terms with its own destruction as result finally of the catastrophic means of anthropological destruction it became in itself as in fact a result of its own anthropological obliviousness. And thus it comes to be understood as just another fantastic realm of the human physiological in itself, as space of human endeavor and imposition that from at least in its original Protestant historical form, left the important things actually to somebody else, as an ultimate renouncing of higher forms of human understanding…Both Science and Judeo-Christian anthropological stability require the annulling of the human corporeal, conceptually—but also in very real, practical consequences that is, in its worst-case scenario of distortion—in actually both cases—a circumventing of higher moral regard for the value of human life itself.

And so science, form this very much unfortunate standpoint can be regarded as just as stupidly physiological as religion itself, and not really superior to it, only in its technical achievements as kind of physiological blindness that is in fact its very flaw. And so between both realms of the Empirical versus the Religiously Spiritual, the common point is actually physiology itself that in both cases is because of the force of denial and annulling of the bodily (curiously!).

 

Physiological experience is not moral in itself, and so depends on some form of conceptual (semiotic)—and so necessarily rational, universally comprehensible—order to in fact oversee it, so physiology can safely be in a collective, cultural sense and for your security; chiefly because physiological experience and invigoration cannot be renounced; is the salt of life and so evidently non-negotiable. So culturally and by hook and by crook it has to be overseen. For your security! Because quite obviously, you can’t do it yourself.

 

Galileo is a physiological perceiver who revels in fact in perception, first and foremost; perception for him is that which is undeniably real! And so it is as of perception that he becomes the scrutinizer, intensely and methodically so. And the possibility thus of science itself (if Galileo is to be understood as first historical intellectual practitioner and patron in a contemporary sense) is ultimately because of this very much Mediterranean-Adriatic infused sensuality of delight with physical experience, under the political-economic and anthropological canopy of essentially spiritual, semiotic stability…and at least initially.

 

 

 

 

 

11) Religious origin of quotidian delight and its connection to 1)Science; 2)Capitalism-Consumerism

As of Middle Ages quality of life (comfort) rises, and the Renaissance is in part centered on the rebirth (once again in the Mediterranean-Adriatic) of delight in life, that is nevertheless supported by the stability of religious anthropological physio-semiotic order as key component of this very stability; and Galileo, like art, takes delight as of physical experience, in perception and the human body itself (in itself); that is not initially in conflict with religious semiotics. That is thus in itself a physiology of tolerance and enthusiasm for the physical—in the physical, but also naturally in regards as well to the material.

 

 

12) In regards to all things human and in terms of cultural attitudes—philosophical and religious entities, forces and their manifestations—understanding its real and truer connection to the bodily and how it relates to it—and even despite the message and words of its own propositions—is key to understanding its real anthropological entity and significance: ALWAYS IN THE BODILY!!!! Empirical Science and Religion, for example, are in this sense curiously similar on exactly this point as strategies of bodily removal and exile, in both cases, and in the face of contradiction of the fact that deeper moral impulse is always directly founded in the individual’s sense of bodily vulnerability especially to a mechanics of anthro-biological opprobrium. But, in the extreme worst-case scenario of structural distortion, if you have in fact succeeded in removing the bodily from the real force of ideas and the anthropological, you have eliminated moral foundation itself. And so in a contemporary sense (as seems clearly to be the case here in NEF) there is simply no possibility of ethics the way we understand it, without a greater embrace of in fact the bodily itself.

 

Foundation of Anthropology and Cryptic Nature of Culture: Is because the body cannot be structurally and thoroughly renounced, and this despite the words, message and spirit of a particular geographically, historically determined semiotics; culture is cryptic because, despite a structural semiotics of physiological order that denies the physiologically corporeal and bodily, the structural itself cryptically services the physiologically primary of bodily experience as clearly a form of deeper technical, structural coherence that cryptically centers everything, in fact, on the bodily (that is the true, deeper essence of human groups—in their real survival and necessary invigoration—and is the chief and cryptic defining force of the culturally-posited rational itself)—but all the while without rationally contradicting nor undoing the culturally-posited semiotic; thus true coherence is an overriding, cryptic supervision and balance of cultural space behind the back so to speak of the culturally rational itself—because, yes and perhaps regrettably, physiological reality must inexorably be held in check BY FORCE to some extent (because the physiological nature of people is, at its deepest core rationally opaque—zoomorphic—that is undoubtedly the strong arm element and true muscle man of its own survival—that itself subordinates the rational, as really instrument of its own violent will towards imposition and physical self-preservation, and of which science is just a quite modern, relatively recent avatar of the same original thing albeit a top a never-before-seen power of imposition that is directly—not just potentially—beyond the limits of the anthropological itself—and so inexorably fatal at the species level, and especially if you live in a very sophisticated BUT TOTAL DARKNESS in regards to the mechanics of your own physio-anthropological entity.

 

 

13) IMPERIAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL FREEDOM, IN ORTEGA Y GASSET

Is a good—simple, clear—example of an animated structural suspension through tension among the parts that all anthropological contexts partake of in the inexorable, universal circumstance of human groups, and bodily singular individuals—that makes all anthropology imperial as a force of semiotic imposition, and in regards to groups and their constitution over and through physical—and physiological—individuality.

 

Tension: argamasa como fuerza estuctural, entre el individuo y la semiotica de los otros; que es un copiar-emular-y buscar pertnenecer-pero respecto un grupo real que es también fisiológicamente totémico, dentro de un proceso fisio-cognitivo y racional del individuo. Y la tensión se debe al componente biológico individual de oprobio que permite la creación cohesionada de grupos humanos en los que el individuo es semióticamente definido según el grupo, pero respecto de la fisiología individual propia; proceso y circunstancias que son naturalmente una combinación de coerción real y opróbica, más la ilusión y encandilamiento individual por pertenecer.

 

 

[1] Lo simbólico y lo conceptual ambos han de encandilar fisiológicamente el organismo del que contempla; es pues un poder de seducción fisiológica del que percibe y respecto los procesos cognitivos y fisiológicamente racionales del individuo. Con lo cual, en la sujeción fisiológica, y después en el proceso cognitivo fisiológico individual, es preciso hablar de un espacio mental fisiológicamente totémico; que es un lugar cognitivo físio-racional donde el individuo se relaciona posicionándose moralmente como individuo frente a lo percibido y sensorial, que desemboca en la definición tentativa emocional-moral del ser humano frente a la percepción sensorialmente de lo que hay; de aquello que acontece en el espacio inmediatamente físico y también conceptual (pues el observar, leer y finalmente comprender no es otra cosa que una forma interactiva-y viritual- de percepción.)

 

Resulta crucial pues el encandilamiento fisiológico precisamente como un ser y estar vigorizado como fuerza subyacente y propulsora después de la proyección fisiológica individual que es finalmente un querer ser ante todo totémico y respecto también de alguna clase de ideal, emulación o modelo ante el cual el individuo haya quedado encandilado y hacia el cual uno se va viviendo, o bien como una forma de emulación o bien como un vigorizado rechazo; o ambas cosa a la vez, siendo todo ello el logro supremo de la antropología agrícola y sedentaria que es simplemente una forma de estabilidad física y espacial colectiva, pero fisiológicamente vigorizada.

 

Con lo cual parece evidente que el proceso permanente histórico de la civilización humana ha de lanzarse sobre todo a un espacio fisiológicamente semiótico como único espacio posible de expansión humana, después de la agricultura y el sedentarismo; que obliga además a la conceptualización de una virtualidad cultural, finalmente, que implica la creación de espacios fisiológicamente vigorizados que sin embargo no minen ni desdibujen la estabilidad colectiva base y real. Que quiere decir que todo antropología a partir de la agricultura es forzosamente una antropología en buena medida estética, pues el orden semiótico es finalmente el orden fisiológico que jamás puede ser tal sin no cuenta con la posibilidad de su propio estímulo y vigorización.

 

Y las ideas que finalmente rigen un grupo humano solo son aceptados por sus integrantes por medio del vigor fisiológico que dichas ideas brindan; o bien si otros influjos auxiliares fisiológicamente vigorizantes surten sus efectos, garantizando la misma viabilidad físio-semiótica del transcurso existencial-temporal del grupo.

 

Porque en el caso de que no se pueda lograr la necesaria vigorización de la existencia sedentaria humana, los mismos individuos y en su propia ferocidad fisiológicamente racional de imposición, fatalmente crearán su propia semiótica, y sus propios significados mas al gusto inexorable fisiológico suyo;

 

Pero eso sería, naturalmente el fin del grupo, y la fundición de nuevo de otro grupo, normalmente a sangre, fuego y hierro siempre candente, como una vision incluso de lo más somero respecto de la historia registrada humana indica.

 

Y se hace necesario hablar de la libertad fisiológica de los seres humanos, repsecto de los espacios antropologicos semióticos como el problema y sino secreto desde siempre de los grupos humanos sedentarios.

 

Y esto simplemente porque los contextos materiales y tecnicos han ido cambiando y evolucionando al descurrir del tiempo humano, sobre todo despues de la agricultura, mientras que la fisiología humana y también a partir de la agricultura, ha permanecido universalmente única y siempre la misma.

 

[2] Y en la ofensa que de uno se siente está la resistencia empedernida de éste respecto del otro, el ofensor; y otro gran baile historico está pues en el maniobrar con el fin de evitar que el otro se ofenda, en cuanto a mecanismos de persuasión que redundan finalmente y una vez aceptadas, en contextos fisiológicos-semióticos estables cuyo artimaña principal ha de ser siempre el que el otro se aproxime en su querer y voluntad propios, a la manera por ejemplo de la propuesta mesiánica de Cristo que es un salvar de la muerte a aquellos que lo quieran y que obren acorde con ello. Principalmente porque contra la voluntad del otro solo cabe la fuerza cuyo ejercicio finalmente desbocado es, además, del extremo gusto fisiológico de todos, y una vez puestos a ello, siendo esto el principal problema de los contextos antropológicos que son verdaderamente estables solo por cuanto permiten la vigorización fisiológica, o bien directamente por medio de la violencia desabrida, o dentro de modos auxiliares de ejercicio fisiológico, y particularmente semióticos que evitan mediante las ficciones empero fisiológicamente reales el conflicto directamente corpóreo y físico; pero en verdad tanto da el uno que da el otro, pues ambos son formas primeramente de estabilidad fisiológica precisamente en el ejercicio vigorizante del ser y estar fisiológico, aunque las posibilidades culturales de mayor enjundia naturalmente solo se dan respecto de contextos que en algún grado significativo semiotizan los conflictos antes físicamente reales y violentos; y dado que el hombre mejor vigorizado está en cuanto preso del miedo, o dentro de cualquier proceso de autoimposición fisiológica-racional. Y esto a tal extremo y en tal grado, que aquellos contextos antropológicos que rijan semióticamente la fisiología estructural colectiva, pero que no logren dar salida a los espacios fisiológicos de máxima vigorización y tonificación individual, simplemente no son estructural ni temporalmente viables como tal, o al menos respecto de un mayor desarrollo cultural, tal y como lo conocemos nosotros y respecto de la historia humana.

_______________

Lo semiótico es tal porque es simbólico al mismo tiempo que es fisiológicamente obligado para el individuo y dentro del espacio totemico, fisio-cognitivo individual; que, con el tiempo y en extensión cuantitativa respecto del colectivo humano particular, se impone oprobícamente al colectivo y respecto de cualquier individuo que pretenda pertenecer o pueda considerarse que pertenezca; y eso incluso naturalmente en el rechazo y desafío individual del mismo, pues la individualidad en sí está en buena medida en el desafiar, en algun grado y de alguna forma…

 

 

 

14) Decorum Anthropology is Cultural Virituality

VERSUS The Physiologically Immediate

The group side of the opprobic is the conceptual side of anthropological experience, that is the reason (whatever form of logic and not necessarily empirical) as to why we do what we do and towards whatever immediate purpose; the meaning to and behind all of which the culturally semiotic must provide and in regards to which individuals physiologically project their own energy and selves—introducing of course and to some degree personalized elements, that become usually closer to a matter of personal style and idiosyncrasy rather than a force of personal creation. Because culture provides the semiotic content for the physiological, but the individual (especially initially) provides the physical, physiological energy.

 

Thus the structural context (within which people are in the projection of their physiological selves and energy) is viritual in itself and the union between cultural, semiotic structure and human physiology is likewise the very much totemic quality of opprobrium; that is, just as the structurally semiotic is a virituality, so does part of the human self likewise become viritual in and through the opprobic. And so the real, authentic self is always the bodily self (that is in fact the authentic moral self—that knows vulnerability, hence also empathy—and that is also the more authentic and deeper rational self); but the possibilities of self are, of course, mostly in the others:

 

In a social sense and within the cultural rigors of decorum rationality and its opprobrium-based realm of totemic virtuality and physiological control; but also in regards to the physiologically immediate other who becomes key to a bodily freer social self (as opposed to physiologically immediate isolation, in which the physiologically extrinsic, totemic and culturally rational self—turns against the bodily rational side of personality and the individual’s experiencing of self.)

 

And so in physiologically immediate contexts of inter-personal exchange does the self once again know and experience her physio-bodily entity, once again and ultimately as a form of relief and respite form the rigors of opprobrium-configured, conceptual and cultural virituality, in which it would seem individuality is permanently held to an only physiological, totemic captivity to her own—or those culturally imposed—ideals of our dummy selves we can certainly never actually be physically:

 

Because the totemic realm of individual anthropological experience is based always on leaving the body behind; a stepping out momentarily, so to speak, so that the self may be delivered unto the rigors ultimately of survival and stability of the group and its culturally postied logic—in our being in some way as an aspiring to that which we are inexorbably not nor will ever completely be as corporeal individuals.

 

This is not to say that personal encounters are sudenly no loger subject to the culturally physio-semiotic, but rather opprobrium-based semiotics can in fact be more directly leveraged by the inidividual in situations of face to face, direct inter-phsyiological exchange (that is, in regards to the physiological complexity of conversation, gestures and facial expresions of emotion and personality); that the individual can in fact manipulate, play creatively with—and immediately correct or rectify in regards to the object beholder’s percpetion (naturally as of the subject’s only partial percpetion and understanding of it.) For In direct physiologically immediate experience with physical others, the communicational agent and the human reciever are both momentarily joined suddenly, in a kind of alliance of the physical human world of living individualiy—against this nebulous and inneffable force of the culturally structural that necessarily is to weigh so heavily on the subjects of her universal majesty,

 

Our sovereign, Lady Anthropology.

 

Physiologically totemic spaces within the Anthropological

-The cultural and phsyiologicaly semiotic;

-A totemic—cultural side—of self that physio-totemically relates to the rationally vague (rationally blind) authority of the group and in regards to semiotic posits the group arrogates and holds itself to.

-The physiologically totemic relationship man enters into with the divine as his own positing of his own impossible ideal of self, omnipotent precisely in regards to opprobrium that is the central force of definition of the self:

 

Greek mythology—or at least in specific historical periods of it—considered divinities lived actually in the physiological nature of the bodily individual, which thus becomes an alternate mode of dealing with the same circumstances of bodily, physiological nature that in some way—through some form of conceptual logic and posting—must be imposed upon, subjected and thus defined as ultimately the physiologically semiotic order of a particular human group, through time and imbricate with specific bodily circumstances and context of its living, vital experience.

 

The Group as the virtual side of the Anthropological

Because after all, where is the human group to be physiologically found, anyway? How often do individuals actually relate physically to the group? And thus the individual experiencing of others (friends or any type of physiologically immediate exchange or context) can never be understood as group experience, either; for the individual in front of you, and similarly to yourself, is not the group, either; but rather,  both of you in fact are allied in a certain sense and in that context against the phsyio-semiotic entity of the group and its wearisome posits of right and wrong, and its ever-present, ever-obsessive notions of appropriateness—to the extreme of one’s suddenly knowing freedom from the cultural self and its phsyio-semiotic tyranny, in the physiologically-immediate, inter-personal other.

 

 

 

15) Ortega Y Gasset y los estados de suspension antropologicos

La fatiga de un órgano parece a primera vista un mal que éste sufre. Pensamos, acaso, que

en un ideal de salud la fatiga no existiría. No obstante, la fisiología ha notado que sin un minimum de fatiga el órgano se atrofia. Hace falta que su función sea excitada, que trabaje y se canse para que pueda nutrirse. Es preciso que el órgano reciba frecuentemente pequeñas heridas que lo mantengan alerta. Estas pequeñas heridas han sido llamadas <<estímulos funcionales>>; sin ellas, el organismo no funciona, no vive. [Cáp. 1 de España invertebrada (1922)]

 

La naturaleza fisiológica de la experiencia humana, condiciona la misma inexorablemente; y dado que los proceso cognitivos son también fisiologicos, la misma violencia física que es el hombre es igualmente la misma violencia fisiológimente racional y cognitiva. Con lo que todo ello contribuye a reforzar el estado permanente de movimiento en el que ha de vivir el hombre-movimiento no necesariamente físico y respecto los contextos agrícolas sino fisiológicamente cognitivo, de base racional y orgánica-que es la entidad base intrínseca nuestra. De manera que una naturaleza que permanentemente ha de hacerse implica una interioridad inicialmente ahuecada.

 

Conceptualización ahuecada del hombre

-En la entidad nuestra humana de autoconocimiento propio en la inicial percepción de aquello que me consta que no so yo.

-La constitución extrínsica antropologica del yo fisiologico individual en la semiotica del grupo.

-La amenaza corpórea oprobica-y base de la posibilidad moral humana-que convierte la misma identidad individual en una modo fisiológico permanente de reacción,  anticipación y cuidadoso acecho respecto del mundo exterior humano y social y semio-culturalmente moral.

-El caracter fisiológico de la existencia que convierte esta en un transcurrir más bien que un ser y estar estácticos; pero esto no solo en cuanto a la edad sino respecto de la permanencia vital del yo que solo en el proceso fisiologico vigorizado mejor se conoce y se reconoce; es decir, precisamente en el transcurso temporal punctual (pero incesantemente reptido) en el que uno es menos consciente de sí, que implica que el proceso fisiologico natural de vigorización es en sí mismo una forma de ligereza y libertad, más allá-está claro-de las demandas moral-estructurales del grupo humano antropológico; lo que convierte la otra parte del yo (este otro elemento contrario) siempre en algo elusivo, siempre de alguna forma más allá de nuestro conocimiento, y nuestra posibildad de apresarlo…Este otro componente que todos designaríamos como nuestra identidad, nuestro yo consciente y razonado.

 

_______________________

Lo que sugiere la hipótesis de que la racionalidad humana tal como la conocemos pudiera ser no apta para la naturaleza físico-fisiológica nuestra; e igualmente que al menos en parte se debe (la racionalidad) a un proceso evolutivo visto en conjunto, de lo más feroz y violento, a lo largo de muchos milenios y generaciones humanas; de tal forma que pudieramos asertar un caracter trágico respecto la naturaleza cogniscente humana esencialmente accidental y malamente sobrevenido historica y evolutivamente, con el efecto de desbordamiento del mismísimo sostén físico humano (por no hablar del antropológico, que desde hace un siglo sabíamos crípticamente y sin lugar a duda que se nos estaba quedando pequeño por razones de repente tecnicamente evidentes.) PORQUE el hombre sobrevive en grupos que funcionalmente requieren que parte de la fisiología humana individual se integre a la entitdad mayor grupal; mas no a expenses de la capacidad explosiva humana de respuesta fisiólógica individual, al final y cabo la posibilidad misma y fundamento existencial del grupo. Adicionalmente, la naturaleza potencialmente racional del ser humano como evidente arma mayor del hombre supervivente historico y frente al mundo-que incluye naturalmente otros grupos humanos como ameneza y rival-no puede separse del ser y estar físicos humanos, esto es, de la experiencia corporal y dado que la experiencia humana es experiencia ante todo fisiologica, que es precisamente aquello que la experience grupal y civilizada (que quiere decir sedentaria) busca someter-que es un encauzar vigorizado y un definir-madiante la semiótica. Que (y siguiendo a Spengler) la fisología humana se acabe semiotizando según la propuesta racional solo grupal, no pinta muy bien respecto a un desenlace futuro cultural-estructural, del ser humano cada vez más alejado de las circunstancias físicas originales que vinieron a definir se fisiología una vez evolutiva; y puesto que jamas dejará el hombre de ser acrícola, la huida tecnologica humana hacia adelante tarde o temprano disminuirá sus propias facultades fisio-racionales y cognitivas, porque la huida espengleriana fisologica al futuro racional una vez urbana es una huida finalmente de si mismo, tal como Spenler lo esobza en cuanto al context fisiologico nato humano que solo semioticamente no puede seguir abesteciéndose, nutriéndose; pero también en cuanto sus capacidades racionales e igualmente morales, siendo ambos de origen en buena medida físico a partir de la naturelza fisiológica humana-y crucialmente corpórea-.

 

 

 

 

 

16) The Conversion of Physical Violence into Physiologically Rational Violence

 

Civilization and the problem of our physiological nature

Cain [4:2] Next she bore his brother Abel. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a tiller of the ground. [4:3] In the course of time Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground, [4:10] And the LORD said, “What have you done? Listen; your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground! [4:11] And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. [4:12] When you till the ground, it will no longer yield to you its strength; you will be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth.” [4:14] Today you have driven me away from the soil, and I shall be hidden from your face; I shall be a fugitive and a wanderer on the earth, and anyone who meets me may kill me.” [4:15] Then the LORD said to him, “Not so! Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance.” And the LORD put a mark on Cain, so that no one who came upon him would kill him.	Seth
Enoch (son)	Enosh (son)
Enoch (City Cain founded, named after his son)	(son) Kenan
(son) Irad	(son) Mahalalel
(son)Mehujael	(son) Jared
(son)Methushael	(son) Enoch
(son) Lamech [4:23] Lamech said to his wives: “Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; you wives of Lamech, listen to what I say: I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me. [4:24] If Cain is avenged sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold.”	(son) Methuselah
(wives) Adah & Zillah	(son) Lamech
Adah (son) Jabal the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock	(son) Noah  “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands.”
Adah (son) Jubal ancestor of all those who play the lyre and pipe.	(sons) Shem-Ham-Japheth
Zillah (son) Tubal-cain who made all kinds of bronze and iron tools. Zillah (daughter) Naama	A conversion of physical violence towards others into an individual physiological violence of purpose and toil—that becomes an accommodation of human physiological nature by sedentary, agrarian contexts through physio-semiotics (the physiological projection of individuality towards culturally coherent—communally understood—“rational” objectives.) And so inevitably leads to a progressive refinement of language, technical understanding and know how—as well as of the arts and ultimately societal mores.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17) The Conundrums of Anthropology

 

1. Rationality considered from the standpoint of the physiological is the only way to really understand the rational

Physical experience takes succor in physiological invigoration; like for instance in the permanently needing to scavange, look for, gather and/or hunt for food, in which a physiology of desperation itself becomes a mind numbing opiate in regards to the need for the conceptual understanding of nearly anything; but if rationality as we understand it—subject to and actually a product of originally specific cultural contexts of higher (originally religious) meaning and the need for it—is to be considered hallmark of civilization,

 

What then becomes of human physiology as of agriculture and this “opiate” quality its invigoration produces?

 

Because human physiology—it goes without saying—can no longer evolve its way out of its very own historcally-configured biological state and condition, acquired definitively as of more sedentary anthropological contexts (that quite logically and universally impede an active force of human natural selection at least initially in regards the intra-group realm.)

 

Quite logically the semiotic—that is also aesthetically physiological—becomes the natural outlet for physiological invigoration primitive (pre-sedentary man) had almost no recourse to because pre-sedentary anthropological experience simply is in its own physiology, and thus does not require individuals conceptually define and control their own physiological entity and behavior according to culturally rational and conceptual posits of the group:

 

Pre and non sedentary human groups live not (or live to a lesser degree) in rationally conceptual posits of their own simply because they do not have a need for them. And thus is primitive culture primitive on this very point, of its being an existence of very close to permanent physiological exertion—exhilaration—and movement from which the higher, more conceptually complex anthropological rationalities of sedentary cultures can only be considered as something like a stately architecture of physiologically semiotic luxury.

 

But the living and collective needs that define sedentary and agrarian anthropological contexts are, of course, different.

 

And so if rationality itself is to be hypothetically considered a need experienced by progressively more and more sedentary human groups, a better understanding of the nature and circumstance of such a necessity becomes finally a deeper understanding of the rational mind.

 

In sedentary contexts human physiology, though it is in itself unaltered and so permanently defined from generation to generation, becomes the center of a new anthropological problem and in fact conundrum:

 

For the gradual acquisition by human groups of the knowledge of agriculture (of seeds and the conceptual complexity of cause and effect from seed to harvest) had produced a context in which man had no choice but to begin to live aesthetically as a way of tolerating the simple fact of sedentary life as no longer being in only one’s bodily physiology; and this especially because implicit is a form of duress and suffering in the bodily circumstances of immobilization and the suddenly brutal awareness of being trapped—like never before—in the physical limitation of human experience.

 

For the opiate of physiological invigoration in sedentary—and especially agrarian contexts—is itself no longer immediately available nor apparent; it in fact becomes something that must be carefully cultivated and eventually refined by the structurally anthropological and cultural itself.

 

And the conundrum is that human will to life and group survival over the millenniums indeed did bring man to the anthropologically sedentary—but at the expense, however, of a deeper and corporeally inherent physiological comfort of the physiological itself; that is the comfort of not being anything more than physiological being.

 

In this sense, such a change could be very well described, for example, as our being cast out of some kind of previous state of bliss or garden; or in terms of successive stages of human kind and some divinity’s effort and struggle of trail and error the way in fact pre-sedentary man is mythologically understood perhaps almost universally—and as in fact only gradually distinguishable himself from the other living creatures he contemplates.

 

Because in sedentary and agrarian contexts the opiate of physiological experience in just physiological being—at least initially—no longer works; or rather works inevitably against the configuration of human groups that are no longer themselves in movement. And so what is at one time only a very real aesthetic sensitivity of early Neolithic human physiology, later becomes a physiologically semiotic resource—towards ultimately conceptually defined human groups that physiologically impose rational logics of a fictional nature on their surroundings, and which work a totemic effect back onto the human group itself.

 

And it would universally seem that the opiate of physiological experience for sedentary man is only viable in the rational possibilities of the physiologically totemic and culturally virtual—because the actual physical consequences of human physiological invigoration quickly overwhelm the very definition of sedentary groups and the possibility of their still being a group.

 

And physiologically semiotic definition of groups—according to their on opprobrium-enforced logically rational posits in regards to their own surroundings—becomes a means and resource to the group’s sedentary, agrarian-based survival—simply because people can still live physiologically invigorated experience without having to completely renounce group membership and embrace.

 

Thus is individual moral identity more than just itself a consequence of sedentary group experience, but rather eventually becomes the chief instrument of physiologically invigorated experience in sedentary contexts which must exceed physical limitation—like never before—through the crucial force of fictionally rational imposition that it is nevertheless most certainly physiologically real.

 

And totemically thus does human rationality begin its historical-cultural ascent through in fact the aesthetic, as of the structurally determined need to hold sedentary groups together while still providing the salt of life that is physio-exhilaration sine qua non.

 

_________________________________________________

The beginning of the Neolithic culture is considered to be in the Levant (Jericho, modern-day West Bank) about 10,200 – 8,800 BCE. It developed directly from the Epipaleolithic Natufian culture in the region, whose people pioneered the use of wild cereals, which then evolved into true farming. The Natufian period was between 12,000 and 10,200 BCE, and the so-called “proto-Neolithic” is now included in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic (PPNA) between 10,200 and 8,800 BC. As the Natufians had become dependent on wild cereals in their diet, and a sedentary way of life had begun among them, the climatic changes associated with the Younger Dryas are thought to have forced people to develop farming.

 

-Thus religion is an opiate not because it is religion, but because it is physiological—as part of a physiologically totemic order of sedentary physiological projection by individuals towards semiotic idealizations and posits; and that of course works physio-totemically in reverse, back onto the human subject (and by extension, the group) towards her own gradual elevation and physio-rational enhancement—ultimately through time and over the generations.

 

 

 

 

18) Opprobic games and rational subversion: COINTELPRO

…expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit or otherwise neutralize…

Dependence of individuality on the group is effectively utilized against the moral self of target individual in regards to social medium of individual’s dependence; becomes a game of removed and remote manipulation of that social medium towards controlling agency over those principals, notions and perceptions that come to constitute a physiologically rational group sentiment of belonging—that is effectively a form of subliminal constitution of group rationality itself (a rationality that is physiologically, sensorially and physio-rationally, physio-conceptually,  constructed and so thus is not really explicitly rational, or completely so; and thus is effectively vulnerable to a subliminal, sub-rational (that is to say, as of a physiological, physio-sensory presentation) agency over and manipulation of it. Thus to say group-posited rationality is not rational, means that because individuals themselves are opprobically pressured in their own relationship with what the group “knows” to be true, the individual cannot herself rationally approach (nor critically comprehend) her own zoomorphic fear of the group’s rejecting them; individuality, as far as group cohesion and entity is concerned, is the individual’s fear of rejection—ostracism—or the group’s turning violently on the self—that essentially constitutes a blocking of man’s higher cognizance towards supremacy and in fact survival (originally, anthropologically) of the group.

The strategy followed in regards to a subliminal (sub-rational and so physiologically aesthetic) force of agency through human groups (as in the case of COINTELPRO), could effectively be described as using target individual as that agency’s medium of expression—specifically in regards to the group’s physiologically totemic perception of target individual and towards a transitive and controlled revealing of that individual as unworthy of belonging: that is the deviously imposed presentation of the pariah, in regards to the group’s physiologically rational substance of self-identity—and most devastatingly in the folds of the group and in our midst.

But because this is, for all individuals potentially involved (as in fact dependent in some way on group definition and its physiological substance of the opprobic) a sub-rational force of individual definition—of that part of personality that is group-configured—the potential for group-internal violence is easily kindled, as long as meta group agency is effectively hidden and cannot be immediately traced back to a rationally understood—rationally visible—causality.

So you are essentially playing sub-rational, physiologically-totemic forces of human group configuration against the other side of the rational self, much like a hunter exploits the specific physical, physiological and anatomic entity of a particular form of animal prey.

 

 

19.The Culturally Rational

versus Physiological Freedom

 

(    [VERSUS] AT&T Anthropology   )

 

1) One is the cryptic causal foundation of the other; and as such can the culturally rational not always be coherent. Chiefly because culture has always feared and violently struck out at physiological anomie. And so the reason of life, after agriculture, is that collective, structural viability requires that people have one; that is, that they rationally project their individual physiology, necessarily towards culturally reasonable, conceptual—semiotic—entities; this is, of course, not to say people are not free in their physiology to be what they want to be, but it does imply being an individual is only as of the conceptual possibilities of the cultural space one’s physical existence takes place in and is dependent on; and that whatever form of defiance human personality builds itself upon, it is also always in regards to specific cultural norms and a particular culturally-bound experiencing of the conceptual.

 

2) The reason for the culturally rational is thus that it is permanently against physiological anomie, that effectively makes not only language but logic itself a form of necessary—minimum—standardization of the individual and that could be considered the better part of identity itself. But clearly, however, the foundation of logic is also cultural—anthropological, even—as an originally particular sensory experiencing of a specific geographic context, by an originally particular human group. And the particular body experience of particular geographic and environmental contexts, produces a specific form of common sense that is the very much bodily foundation of a specific cultural logic, finally. Thus, the collective will towards semiotic definition of the physiological is also regionally different, although universal in essence as stability through definition, which, in regards to human physiological experience can only ultimately be a meaningful—purposed—engagement of it. And so, all cultures, to one degree or another of both will to rationally impose on the physiological—as well as also a tolerance of it—posit different mechanisms and systems of the conceptual over and through the individually physiological—that is conceptual according to whatever common sense permanently local, bodily experience and over the generations as ended up depending on towards its own functional, collective viability (survival originally).

 

3) Thus the very reason for culture is ultimately that which originally so very much terrified it; that continues permanently through time and once again to threaten it—given that human physiology, as of agriculture, can no longer evolve in itself. Systemically, however, the threat of physiological anomie is simply the danger of non-definition, and that on careful scrutiny comes to be understood as the real motor of the culturally-posited rational itself (as thus not really an enemy, but rather the natural, physiologically invigorated impetus of individuals, especially in their youth and into middle age). But clearly invigorated human groups originally made for more resilient human groups, and thus it seems clear and universally, that specific anthropological contexts seek not to completely suppress the physiological force of individuality, but rather make it the cryptic center of even the culturally rational itself, and in a very much secret contradiction to and paradox with the logic and narratives of specific cultural experience. And so the foundation of individuality is culturally inherited, but cultural systems cryptically (and necessarily) accommodate individual physiology and personality by allowing—perhaps even secretly (‘cryptically’) encouraging—individuals to define themselves against and even beyond the cultural itself, that is thus initially the reason culture needs to be culture; but with the added advantage that, although human physiology is in fact permanently defined and constituted, cultural systems clearly live to evolve!

 

4) And thus not only does the stability of the culturally rational need to be invigorated (through simply and permanently human physiology), to be truly stable culture needs to be challenged that becomes thus the need once again to impose itself; and culture is alive in the very challenge that it is brought to it, that is the impetus of its own force through time. But, of course, the circumstance of the physiological is stimulus (through intrinsic need as of specific spatial context, that can be understood as a permanent drive to towards the attainment of satisfaction—or broadly comfort); and the physiological thus never vies well, all the time and in regards to all the phases of individual development with the rational. And worse still, human rationality is very much physiological in itself, being rational conviction much more important than actual rational understanding itself—for bodily experience is bodily in its very singular limitation, and thus can never really know beyond what it can actually apprehend (and this often in a strictly sensorial sense!) But rational conviction has long been demeaned, and in fact overshadowed by the culturally considered higher rigors of the rationally analytical. And this must now be critiqued.

 

5) Because the rationally analytical, while also always present in all cultural manifestations in all historical periods, has become today as of Western experience (originally) a form itself of physiological anomie—or this in at least the worst distortion of it. Specifically because of its obvious power of material transformation, it has tended to work against the anthropological configuration of human groups—in specifically how empirical imposition—to in fact impose itself the way it has done as of industrialization—posits the methodological elimination of bodily individuality in, first of all, the observer herself; that is a sort of objectifying of the human agent as of the object of analysis; which as a methodological approach, it goes without saying, has been powerfully effective, but that as an ontological position becomes ominously sinister as an observer who renounces the bodily, in regards ultimately thus also to other human beings whose bodily experience similarly—and historically—has become analytically irrelevant also. And thus, in the renouncing of the bodily (this that is referred to as subjectivity) is the technical impossibility of the moral (given that opprobrium is only effective in the individual’s experiencing of bodily vulnerability; that is the reason why the moral—perhaps ultimately rational—possibilities of a computer are no possibilities, no how.) But physiological freedom, as the cryptic cornerstone to the survival and, later, collective civilized viability of human groups, is also historically trigger and detonator of the distortion of science itself, in its very cultural physologicalization beyond just simply the methodology of a very sophisticated, technical form of dorking around with what is in front of you.

 

Because the freedom of science—its original ontological force—is that it removes itself from the opprobic as a physiology initially of only inference, regardless of the at least theoretical, social consequences of its endeavor; but a physiology of inferences is in itself a powerful thing, that cultural has in fact always carefully controlled, and given that its own stability has always resided in physio-rational definition as limitation: for Icarus is cryptically more than just an admonition, but culture itself cannot be Icarus!

 

6) One significant example of just this is in economics—or more exactly, in the administration through time of business models—always in regards ultimately to human physiological aggregates, that sees a very much analytical force of analysis and highly refined, technical precision, applied however to the necessarily unaware human object; in such a way and method that physiologically invigorated experience—that naturally precludes to a great degree higher forms of rational awareness—becomes chief tactical asset of technical imposition and that (in regards to banks, and to some extent all business models that seek essentially the same financial stability of account balances, through time) works permanently to maintain this informational discrepancy through multiple strategies of conceptual vagueness, never-clearly-understood technical circumstances and difficulties; and through a very much fostering itself of physiological freedom of individuals, but ultimately—spuriously—towards just its own reinforced, leveraged position over human contexts, through time.

 

AT&T Anthropology in effect is about the control of aggregate human, physiological contexts, through time and in regards to human experience only in terms of purchases based on new, induced and very much fabricated needs—all of which can only come ultimately through a force of impingement on the culturally conceptual itself. Thus AT&T Anthropology, in its historical form of technical climax after 1980, could have only come into being through a furious, never-before-seen process of media consolidation that computer cybernetics only made all the more formidable and absolute, after the early 1990s. And thus a higher realm of truly intellectual, physiologically rational endeavor and cultural entity, eventually becomes only in itself a culturally functional cliché, seemingly as a higher point on the cultural spectrum of light and understanding, but that is only, finally, a form of just lip service and auxiliary support to a physiological obliviousness the culturally structural cryptically founds itself on—and with the added convenience and advantage that structural agency never has to feel guilty about what it is nor ever account for its own reality of cultural dominance, as long as loftier semiotics of cultural cliché holds…

 

But AT&T Anthropology is defective anthropology, specifically in the fact that it does not work towards the reinforcement of the individual, as natural anthropological spaces do, but rather permanently towards just its own structural leveraging of the human physiological and aggregate where the big money is and has always been!

 

And it is human physiological freedom that AT&T Anthropology so fiercely protects, as a form of living hagiography of praise towards individuality, but that paradoxically must refrain from ever openly explaining where its real structural legitimacy actually comes from; that is no legitimacy at all, but rather simply a structural leveraging of human—and consumer—aggregate physiological experience, through time.

 

INDEX

1) A Story of Opprobrium at the Center of You

2) Genetic Variation

3) Human Groups Versus The Bodily Individual in Four Points

4) Genetic Variation in Human Groups (2)

5)Exiled Man Anthropology Or Structurally Displaced Individuality of Anthropology

6)THE HUMAN GROUP OF CIVILIZATION

7) Individuality begins in the human group. Explain:

8)Perceive and So Shall You Be: The Force and Violence of Human Perception

9) The Apocalypse Man in You

10) Of Human Violence Of Human Physiological Bondage

11)Semiotic Function Semiotic City of Christ

12) Science  Religion Physio-Semiotics (and Physiological Milieu)

13)Hazañas humanas de superación biológica y cultural

14) Cariz fisiológica de la experiencia humana y social[15aug16]

15) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida

16) The Culturally Rational versus Physiological Freedom versus AT&T Anthropology

 

1)A Story of Opprobrium at the Center of You

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Man_and_Immoral_Society (1932)

From the standpoint of opprobrium, explain why the logic contained in the title of the book would almost inevitably always be true; specifically, what situational circumstance of individuality (from the standpoint of opprobrium) insures this?

 

A social need of self is directly produced as of the zoomorphic circumstances of opprobrium (as biological feature of human beings, and probably similarly in regards to all mammals, birds, fish and possibly insects); because a sense of self as of the contemplation of especially social reality in terms of fear and the consequences of one’s being rejected, ostracized, expelled—or murdered by the very human group one is intensely, biologically dependent on, is of course also the logical implication and confirmation of self, as at least perceiver who, additionally, must foresee and eventually anticipate the consequences of her own behavior. This eventual need of social foresight regarding one’s own behavior is necessarily the seed of what we understand as morality, and perhaps as well, a very important component of rationality itself, in regards at least to human beings who take the herd concept far above and beyond the point of any other living species on the planet. And it is certainly a form of biological force of urgency towards the need and development of a rational self in and against the group, and given that only individual experience is corporeal, bodily experience.

 

Thus the problem of anthropology as individual, bodily experience but paradoxically configured as of a group becomes the very structural center of anthropology that, in the physiologically immediate circumstances of the inter-personal realm of group life through time physiologically (and already thus morally in a physical sense) begins to define the parameters of the group, its structure, and thus imposes a physiological appropriateness on different individuals in regards to what becomes the vital purpose of the group itself, towards its perseverance and ultimate, group survival.

 

Because in pre-agricultural contexts, survival is quite clearly in the group itself sine qua non; and in the biology originally of human beings, as well that becomes, of course, the foundation of biological opprobrium that is initially—but also logically—a priority of the group over individuals.

 

So, seemingly individuality would thus become a problem, and even a threat to group viability, and in a certain, technical sense—it is; but a problem as really an inexorable circumstances of bodily experience only individuals live in, and in its quality of the logically inexorable, is solved by making it the true, underlying—cryptic—cornerstone of the structurally collective, simply because individually resilient members of a group (and quite naturally at times against the group) ultimately make for more resilient groups. Thus the accommodation of the force of individuality becomes a commandeering of it by the anthropological group and, eventually, culture; because inexorably only individuals live physiologically corporeal experience.

 

And so the morality of individuality is thus clear from the very beginning as the numerically inferior underdog, who lives permanently in a paradoxical, Catch-22 context of needing biologically to belong to the group, while being permanently prevented from ever completely belonging because of the corporeally singular experience of the body:

 

Thus even for the individual, can the corporeal become a problem as indeed permanent obstacle towards total, group integration; and so for the individual, corporeal-based individuality is permanently a form of burden.

 

Naturally, as of agriculture and definitively sedentary experience of the group itself, culture’s ability to mediate individual experience through the semiotic, becomes key in regards to a new mode of anthropological functionality, that is naturally (intrinsically) a distancing of individuals more and more from physical and physiologically corporeal experience through the ideas a human biology of opprobrium makes physiologically relevant, and physiologically binding for the individual; and situationally these ideas are simply the notions the numerically superior force of the group hold as real, of whatever nature and regardless of said notions actually being real or not—as long as they are anthropologically effective.

 

Situationally is this thus a geometry of opprobrium of a relative, situational nature, and that of course changes as the notions of the group are modified, or in regards to an altogether new group the individual may, circumstantially, need to integrate with.

 

Because even immorality is a still conceptually within the scope of the moral, that becomes the structural hotspot of individuality, after sedentary experience in which physiology can no longer just physically be the way it could in pre-agricultural (pre-sedentary contexts) and only physiologically held in check by a body logic of the group; as of agriculture it becomes a physiology of moral dilemma itself that substitutes the physiological being of pre-agricultural human history. And so individuality becomes a structural requirement, if one is to belong to agricultural-based, human groups in which moral dilemma as tension is the primary, living source of simply invigoration, the anthropologically structural, however, cannot do without.

 

And the individual’s function is that of living in moral tension towards really structural viability itself, given that the nature of human physiology is still that of pre-sedentary human groups, for how can human biology evolve through a mechanism of human natural selection, in highly refined, dynamic contexts of collective, physiologically-structured human groups?

 

The answer is, it can’t; not as of certainly agriculture. And in the historical immediacy just previous to it, only cultural and group relevant biological evolution (as process of natural selection) could have taken place, and for a little while longer; because agriculture definitively halts human biological evolution in that it no longer allows for the force of human, natural selection.

 

But if only individual experience is truly physical experience, who really are the others whom the individual physio-rationally toils with and under, permanently as the human group of individual dependence? Because every individual you actually talk to, is an individual just like you—and whom, if you talk long enough to him or her, you know is in some sense not one of them, of the others; but rather is this individual before you and in his or her physicality you know to be very much like yourself?

 

Because the circumstances of opprobrium are crucially physiological, not really rational, although you can intellectually apprehend a conceptual understanding that, however, is not comparable to the direct physiological force of biological opprobrium—because opprobrium is the cause of the individual’s need to be in and towards the rational, but is intrinsically irrational (zoomorphic) in itself.

 

And so always is the group one is dependent on a figment of physiological experience, that necessarily only just verges on the rational, but that is not rational itself. Because the demanding nature of pre-agricultural, pre-sedentary group experience, demanded also a direct command over human, physiological response of the individual; and originally through natural selection, the biology of opprobrium and the physiological mode of being it dictates, is simply our biology to this day.

 

And thus from a strictly structural standpoint, individuality is guilt, remorse, fear and dread—and perhaps also inevitably empathy in regards to the plight of others one knows so well as of one’s own experience of self as the underdog that is intrinsically (in its very structural circumstances) individuality;

 

But from the standpoint of singular, corporeal experience, individuality is also a criterion of the bodily self versus the group; and so becomes fear and dread—jealsoy, envy and hatred—but is also a sense of fairness, and fear of excessive brutality of the group against the individual (because individuality is the very context of being an underdog), and an acute sense of justice and equanimity, in the physio-biological experience of individuality always and permanently at the mercy of the group; and to the group is also individuality an appeal for order in fact through justice;

 

And, of course, defiance that is also at times the cold and calculating moving against the group to one’s own advantage through rational acumen, for how else can advantage be gained over the numerically superior force of number of the group?

 

And individuality is also thus at times the need to hide, and in fact deceive, as a protecting of what is individually intimate against the anticipated fear of the consequences of the group’s taking offense—and thus its rejection of you.

 

But the good news is that, in all the turmoil of being of the self, in the commandeering of your physiological response by the collectively structural, and thus the individual’s need rationally, strategically to protect herself, it is culture itself that depends crucially—and waits thus expectantly—for individuality to challenge it, though lady culture in her silence and perhaps enigmatic and subtle smile, says nothing in this sense,

 

Because the burden is naturally always on you to actually be you;

 

That is in fact how she really prefers it, and despite perhaps the individual’s initial understanding of just prohibition; because she is not really about prohibiting—structural viability is in cryptically accommodating that which inexorably is, and even if she doesn’t make this explicit; she can’t, because you are supposed to, finally, not so much in your acts and words, but rather more likely, attitude.

 

It is then in this sense that exactly what you are in becoming you, as thus a response to the physio-semiotic constriction through the oprobric that is the culturally-posited rational itself, still in some way belongs very much to her.

 

That is to say, you could not be the you you are if not for culture, and specifically the human group you depend on that effectively makes you what you are, and very much in physiologically rational counter-response to it.

 

And so then does your defiance as self-affirmation also in this sense belong to her.

 

______________________________

Genetic Variation is a form of natural difference perhaps also towards simply a form of intrinsic, group invigoration—as ultimately a structural elasticity as group resilience; that could then perhaps explain the ultimate meaningless and defective quality of genetic variation in regards to human beings—given that moral dilemma itself, after agriculture, would seem to override any other form of strictly biological difference in regards specifically to group intrinsic mechanism of invigoration. (Page wonders about the possible reason for genetic variation and its apparent residual quality from an evolutionary standpoint in regards to human populations; because ultimately being as a self is permanent being in difference and against the natural, intrinsic pull of the group itself over individuals, to the point that biological differences of genetic variation lose their purpose and have effectively been substituted.) [INNER GROUP COHESION IN PHYSIOLOGICAL ENGAGEMENT AND STRIFE]

 

 

 

2)Genetic Variation

            Intra-group difference [BECOMES] intra-group division and tension

                        [BECAUSE OF] individual physiological nature

 

Division helps to engage physiological nature of individuals; engaged physiology is an internal (group intrinsic) form of stability. And so definition of physiology is an engaging of it, and its very invigoration; and thus becomes an elasticity of group structure in the possibility of physiological invigoration of different individuals that additionally, will seek further forms of invigoration and definition externally and in regards to inter-group differences (that is, of course, also an opportunity of the group’s own definition through and against other groups).

 

Thus once again does the structural accommodate individual physiology in the contextual invigoration and engagement of it; as if all anthropological groups universally can only be groups if individual physiology is in some way subordinated to the group itself, in at least its very invigoration as ultimately the only real possibility of group stability. Because non-engaged physiology is more destructive in its unpredictability, and thus is itself a threat intra-group dynamics counters by effectively providing a context of division, that is invigoration, that is thus finally a consolidation of the group itself.

 

 

3) Human Groups Versus The Bodily Individual in Four Points

1. Physical and Physiological Core of The Individual

Zoomorphic Bodily Vulnerability g Biological Opprobrium g

Morality based on Bodily Vulnerability g Rationality Based on Bodily Vulnerability g

Genetic Impulse to Belong, but Impossibly Beyond the singularly Physical + Physiological g

Situational Continuum with-for-against The Group g

Situational-Conceptual, Subject/Object Continuum g

Individual Possibility of Empathy in regards to Other Individuals.

 

AND CRUCIALLY Capacity to perceive (especially visually) depth.

 

 

2. Collectively Structural Side of Human Groups

-Biological Opprobrium and the Group

-Physiological Relevance of the Semiotic

-A Group-Posited Physio-Semiotics against the individually physiological

-Becomes functionally collective, opprobrium-based secondary physiology;

-But that cryptically defines itself off of and against deeper, real physiological core of the individual

-And so also cryptically (and in contradiction to the semiotic) reinforces remotely, indirectly individuality itself.

 

3. Real But Cryptic Cornerstone of human Groups is Thus the Individual

 

4. A Structural Stability Diachrony

Is the Individual’s effect of physiologically violent invigoration on the structural itself, as finally a suspended state of systemic, structural tension, through time. That becomes a structural relationship of mutually physiological dependence between bodily individuality, and the collectively opprobic virtuality of a culturally-determined and specific physio-semiotics.

 

 

 

 

4) Genetic Variation in Human Groups (2)

Allows for individuality as space against the physio-semiotic; that is also a source of physiological invigoration as difference, division and strife, which in effect reinforces difference and thus engagement in regards to physiological nature of human experience—that is thus a systemically centralized means of stability at the very structural center of the anthropological itself as individual experience; that is thus an immediate instrument of ultimately group stability, through similarly invigoration and physiological engagement—crucially because individuals survive as members of a group. But real group stability as the structural is itself only possible if individuals are physiologically invigorated mas non troppo and through mechanisms the culturally structural can ultimately adapt to and thereby benefit form—especially in the form of systemic and cryptic opposition to it, because this probably feels more invigorating and even if it is never explicitly—rationally—understood.

 

 

5)Exiled Man Anthropology

Or

The Structurally Displaced Individuality of Anthropology

That, in the exclusively bodily, thus accounts for the moral patrimony of really indiviudality itself—as the only way to begin to know the moral that is in your own physical, bodily vulnerablity; and biological opprobrium is about moral threat that is ultimatly physiologically experienced as physical, bodily threat; but structurally, it is the physical which human groups can never actually asimílate that effectively leaves the individual permanently out in the cold, so to speak, and that is in fact the very realm of moral possibility, in regards really to the anthropological itself.

 

And so the general and broadly stated rule of thumb is human groups have difficulty with morality because only individuals live in bodies; groups are a physiologically semiotic reality, but not physical. But groups can, of course, control the physical circumstances of bodily trangressors…

 

So are human grupos real?

The individual relates to other indiviudals, and thus seldom physically understands herself as part of a group; the group is however very real in physiological sense although not rationally. A case-in-point could be human aesthetic sensitivity to group-like formations of uniform objects (groups of elongated pine and cypress trees; rows and colums of chairs and desks; groupings of houses and buidings that permanently denote in the human observer’s perception a conceptualization of human presence and potential activity; an extension of rows and columns of automobiles awaiting shipment…); but while such images are physiologically sharp and poignant, they are effectively opague to rational and intellectual anaylisis, at least initially.

 

In evoltionary terms (both biological and thus also orginally social, between rival human groups) physiological experience would seem to have proved itself supreme, as the constant, underlying pillar to all posterior semiotic expanse; because the semiotic is also physiological, and thus the realm of real physiological expanse and transit for human beings after agriculture. Becuase as a constant, there was really no place else human physiological drive and impetus could expand into, except into the symbolic through language (while the physiologically rational force of art became auxiliar—and in some sense in opposition—to the culturally-posited rational itself.)

 

Because art services the deeper physiological nature of people and experience by circumventing the culturally-posited rational.

 

So it would seem the physiological nature of indiviudality relates totemically to the group more cognitively than actually in a physical sense, especially so after agriculture; thus is indiviudal moral dilemma a physiologically rational experiencing of  the group albeit through the anticipated aprehension of the consequences of one’s own behavior and the sense of bodily vulnerabilty this could potentially incurr.

 

And so bodily experience for the individual is—in a social sense (that is perahps ultimately the only sense of individuality) in regards to a deeper subconcious (subcultural) stratum of anthropological, group configuration—because of and in pitted opposition to a very much nebulous sense of physiological dread and loathing, chiefly in regards to the anticipated consequences of one’s own bodily behavoir (and even if only in words, it is still easily conceptualized as really an individual, bodily act with regards to another human being or human group.)

 

Thus in a strictly collective sense (as, again, perhaps ultimately the only sense) individuality could be conceptualized as simply the possibility of guilt, remorse and an underlying state of bodily vulnerablity and apprehension.

 

The only sense because the human, social universe begins for the individual at exaclty this point and at the earliest of ages in one’s physical-psychological development.

 

And, is there any other universe except the social, really?

 

All indiviudality is thus socially produced in the very contradiction as necessary group integration of the individual (towards individual safety that is the group’s survival); but as a singular human corporality that never can compeletely belong.

 

And that space between belonging to the group, and the physical impossibility of complete group integration, is you.

 

No wonder the whole thing propelled itself into the physiologically totemic and abstract.

 

And this particularly because physical human interaction directly with other physically real individuals, is often percieved ultimately as a form of relief from the physiologically moral and totemic tension the individual lives in (in her mind and as the better part of the physiologically rational itself.)

 

Because culture ultimately wants your physiology, but not really your body.

 

You have to take care of that.

 

(Because cryptically culture in this indirect way, needs you to be you!)

 

 

 

6) THE HUMAN GROUP OF CIVILIZATION

-Is not physical;

-But is physical rather in the physiological and the physiologically binding force of opprobrium biology.

-The human group of civilization is thus a figment of the physiological mind and cognizance of the individual;

-That is, however, rationally opaque and so not intellectually apparent (because the original human group of universal anthropology stakes its ultimate survival on the raw and ferocious physiological response of the individual, that only the physiological and non-rationally mediated could effectively make explosive.)

-But individuals are in fact physiologically and aesthetically sensitive to the group.

-Crucially important to this argument is the fact that physical experience itself (direct and face to face physio-situational, physiologically immediate human interaction among individuals) is a form of delightful relief precisely from the physiologically mental ardors of opprobrium and the physiologically totemic turmoil of the individual’s really group and collective configuration she is, however, rationally unaware of.

-And this becomes very probably the chief reason why culture is cryptic; because rationality is itself cryptic from the standpoint of only human physiological response and its violence, though from the standpoint of culturally-posited rationality, it is the body world of opprobrium that is in fact the cryptic, shadow realm of cultural experience.

 

 

Practicing with Ideal Models of Self

The great missionary, like the great artist, is able to convince some people of the truth of ideas they already half hold, but have been impeded by propaganda or restraints form adopting. Thus he liberates them to become what they have partly wanted to be all along, and so they move in the new direction not only without regrets but with joy. Francois de Sales was learning this lesson about the human heart…(Pg.142, The ‘ Peaceful Conversion’ of Chablais (Nef))

 

-How you believe you are seen is like an ideal of you up, so to speak, on a stage; that is opprobrium as bodily destruction at the hands of your peers only at a deeper physio-zoomorphic level, and so transformed (?) physio-totemically into almost a graphic experiencing of an ideal of yourself—in the mind’s eye and always in the body’s heart (that is, of course, the real force of opprobrium); and so naturally is the individual caught internally between both planes or realms, that is the ideal and very much extrinsically-wrought you (based on what you would yourself be in the eys of others and in regards to their approval or not) versus the body’s physiological turmoil as very much also resentment towards the power fear in this social sense has over the bodily self that is also you.

 

Vicarious Propositions of God towards a Better, Original Human Self And so in the ideal of god as a human projection of the Super Self (above and beyond specifically opprobrium) can man thus viscerally play at being a better—perhaps higher—self; in thus experiencing himself the impossible role of God, while interacting also as a totemic object of the same initial projection. And faith becomes historically a prototype of psychiatric therapy and exercise; a mechanism of physiologically moral transit and vicarious formation, towards a higher social being…

 

 

7) Individuality begins in the human group. Explain:

-Illusions are physiologically real. The physiologically real is probably more important in regards to human experience in many ways than reality itself. (?)

–Genetic Variation is due to—or ends up being useful in regards to—the physiological nature of human experience as individuals dependent on human groups. As a form of food for the eyes and senses, physical and personality differences among individuals of the same group produce an effect of physiological engagement and delight that is probably hugely significant in regards to ultimate group cohesion that, because of the physiological nature of human experience, must also be an invigorated group cohesion.

-Art works very much like a code, as a signifier that usually very loosely references some form of meaning; and the meaning of art is the broader realm of non-mediated, human physiology—outside behind, and around the culturally-posited rational itself. And this is so in such a way that what may in fact be rationally opaque (for instance the zoomorphic nature of biological opprobrium) can still be aesthetically referenced in the biological mettle and sensitivity of the individual.

-A history of totemic exercise and growth—that is human history, as of agriculture. Explain:

 

 

 

8)Perceive and So Shall You Be: The Force and Violence of Human Perception

Sound-of-rain-on-your roof-mechanism of physiological conformity with physical limitation as definition, is also a form of higher physiological contemplation of what you are; that allows you to physiologically step outside yourself—given that you are the object of an external force of pressure and onslaught; and through that externality is the possibility of looking back at and down on your satisfied, physiological self; that is satisfied –because protected—because safe and sound, which the perception of external force only heightens, reinforces (through ultimately the physiological idea of bodily sanctuary, refuge, safety.) And it becomes a physiological use of the external that is finally a physiologically-conceptual force of comfort in the individual, very much along the lines of religion and the posting of rational logic onto exactly that which cannot be contradicted, as also a way for people (or cultural groups) to step outside themselves and thus acquire similarly an image of themselves through the eyes of the divinity as super self,  albeit above and beyond the rigors of the opprobic and physical limitation itself,

 

Towards a rough-cut and violently forged sense of ultimate bodily security and quotidian stability.

 

In regards to which eventually someone will come along and set down the logical, culturally-imposed precepts to its mediation (codification) by the group; which will become the conceptually semiotic side of all permanently future mechanisms of opprobrium-driven configuration of the group,

 

As long as the base and initial physiological illusion never loses its effect:

 

And how can it, if the logical foundation of the culturally-posited rational utilizes human, physical limitation in such a way as to permanently remove itself from the possibility of being contradicted?

 

But was this intentionally done through some kind of original cleverly crafted, human design?

 

Not at all; picture if you will a Jason Bourn fight scene in which two thoroughly trained men go at each another while seeking to avail themselves individually and against the other, of any object or spatial circumstance they might come across, and phsyio-rationally understand (almost instantaneously) the tactical use they can make of it, towards only the purpose and contingency of need to physically impose themselves on their rival.

 

And the violence of human perception is the human force of rational imposition, when it needs to be.

 

Tom Hanks on His Island in Cast Away (2000)

Is something of a case study of cultural man albeit outside of any culture whatsoever, that becomes a physiology of need that is portrayed finally as a physiology of logical inference towards the individual’s ability to physically survive, but ultimately in regards also to the ability to impose symbolic meaning on his circumstances,

 

And given that no one has previously done it for him.

 

And so his ability to do just this is powerfully enhanced when he finds (creates for himself) a way back into language, through his physiologically totemic relationship with Wilson, the volleyball;

 

That capacitates him to in fact recover other elements of the civilization he is originally a product of (like mathematics, for example) as further tools towards an above all rational imposition over his bodily circumstances, that is however ultimately of a logical, mental nature of essentially the mind.

 

And the violence of man is his violence, once again and back into the wilderness of pre-agricultural (pre-cultural) man, that could be understood narratively as Adam himself in the very contingency of violent need towards a violence of rational creation, in regards to anything he can avail himself of;

 

And in regards to human beings, this means precisely limitation itself the human subject turns to her favor in the rational license not fully knowing allows us:

 

For in regards to the non-apprehensible, we can say whatever we finally need to, as long as it is permanently non-apprehensible and thus forever beyond the possibility of being contradicted.

 

Because physiologically rational inference and imposition does not have to be right, as long as it works; that is to say, as long as the individual—eventually the greater cultural group—can successfully avail herself of it.

 

 

 

9)The Apocalypse Man in You

The reason for the cryptic foundation of culture, that thus allows for fantastically cohesive—yet invigorated—human groups by semiotically defining, and thus limiting primary, human physiology, is that human groups historically did not always survive, and so individuals also had to be of the fiercest mettle as also the imposer of meaning exactly when meaning was no longer available structurally from the group itself, which the individual is in fact capacitated—potentially and universally—to do.

 

And thus is the contingency of anthropology covered from both angles, that is the normal stability of human groups in the survival of the group, through time and over the generations—but not individuals (naturally); or in the event of the entire group’s demise, a single survivor in her core and primary physiological rationality (that group configuration always makes the cryptic center of its own edifice, anyway, by in fact defining and limiting, but not completely suppressing it) forces the individual to revert openly back to a warrior-builder physio-rationality that must create for itself and as an individual what the group can no longer impose—until a new group naturally arises.

 

Physiologically Real but not Physically Real

The irrational—or zoomorphic—and subconscious to which people nevertheless are aesthetically sensitive and receptive, becomes a physiologically relevant entity through biological opprobrium that is in and regards to the individual, the instrument of the group’s imposition as definition; and that is nevertheless initially opaque to rational thought; and so is to be understood as physiologically relevant, but rationally opaque.

 

Physical Experience is Not Diachronic because it’s sensory Experience

So Jorge Guillen’s poem (Más allá) is all our poetics in the daily renewed consciousness of bodily experience and knowing ourselves once again and day after day, in very probably the body’s initial perception of exactly that which we are not—that is the visual (and often aural) conformation of material reality, as well as the human world of a moving, interacting others.

 

And in seeing what I am not, I am…

And so human being is the experiencing permanently of a kind of bodily exile in regards to a material (and animal) world you know you are not—and to some degree, not really part of almost at all.

 

Thus is being finally a permanent state of limitation that not surprisingly (that is to say, logically) makes the real and human spirit one of overcoming and imposition, and this most fiercely and constantly so, as a physiological fact and circumstance of this that we are in our sensory being…

 

With regards then to the physiological possibilities of the semiotic, it is certainly no wonder at all human beings would push ferociously into it, historically, as simply a resource swiftly understood—or perceived and felt—as useful, if only one can conceptualize the real pressure that is the physical limitation of bodily experience.

And so as soon as man needed to, he began a much more intense construction of his own symbolic and semiotic cathedral as culturally conceptual universe, according to and at pace with the historical progression his linguistic capacities allowed for.

 

And that original need most intensely in an historical sense was the long and progressive advent of agriculture.

 

Because when you are actually physically sedentary and permanently settled in one place, you suddenly must bear the greatest of physiological pressure to actually be by moving and in movement, and to a degree hitherto never felt before:

 

And thus almost desperately does the individual need at that point to project her physiological self, rather than simply be physiologically—because the possibility of group cohesion as of agriculture is in the ideas of the group itself and the physiological relevance of those ideas for the individual’s ability to belong (through opprobrium.)

 

But “project” one’s physiology in regards to what, towards what end, goal or objective?

While it is certainly true that you ultimately decide, the availability of possible modes of social being as available—and appropriate—ideals and working models towards our own individual being as projection, are surely only available in that they are in fact appropriate—that is, culturally conceivable according to standard, semiotic culturally shared convictions of the group in regards to which the individual can choose—and surely make some form of customized and individually peculiar adaptation—but in no case can she actually invent social roles that are not at least socially conceivable and broadly understood by the group.

 

Supremacy, finally, of the physiological

Cultural change thus does take place when the culturally construed (opprobrium-configured) semiotic plane of the culturally-posited rational is no longer relevant in regards to actual and collective, physiological experience; that is physiological experience in its own impetus and vital autonomy that no longer relates successfully to the culturally semiotic and structural, and that begins logically to live in its own physiologically rational imposition of meaning, as is also universally inherent to human experience and its physiological substance.

 

But of course human, physiological experience and impetus is the deeper driving force of culture itself, below and behind the a culturally-posited logic of its own only culturally rational understanding of itself; and thus milder forms of non-violent social unrest and existential turmoil are historical forms of actually cultural opportunity, at the level of the anthropologically systemic, towards its regained and once again renewed synchronization with the living physiological projection of individuals.

 

______________________________

And the meaning of life, after agriculture, is specifically in the fact the experience must have a purpose, if complex social structure is to exist in a working, vital cohesion of all its elements, through time; For how else can physically separate and distinct individuals actually be part of a single living, systemic entity? And individual purpose towards necessarily some degree of personal, ultimately physiological definition in regards to the nature of what one is in one’s doing as being, becomes the group’s instrument of effective individual standardization; and that as the structurally standardized, must seek out physiological opportunity of invigoration (in genetic variation itself and the stimulus—difference and strife—it becomes; and in regards to structurally auxiliary spaces of physiological exercise—the arts, sports, and sundry forms of culturally-defined physiological entertainment as really invigoration.)

 

 

 

 

10) Of Human Violence of Human Physiological Bondage

Is in imposition (that is perhaps the essence of physiological entity in the power to attain comfort); in the semiotic capacity of also physiological transit from one state of limitation, finally, to a new state of stimulus—and at least initially—until that too, grows stale, at which point can one move on once again from limitation into novelty, once again and successively; or one can simply go back again to the first and original point, that in the individual’s returning is physiological novelty to be once again had and experienced.

 

And the physiological is thus movement, is transition from the static to stimulus, in novelty itself; or as a perpetual back-and-forth, back-and-forth between alternating states of stimulus as relief from the physiologically novel that has inexorably gone stale, once again…

 

But man is also violence in his moral entity:

Because morality—perhaps meaning itself—is ultimately based on the individual’s physiological (and so not immediately rational) sense of bodily vulnerability that is the core biological element of Opprobrium, and in regards to the risk of being savagely dismembered by your fellow group members, because of the offense you caused; or the dread similarly of your being simply abandoned by them, also because you have fallen out of grace with them and their approval, and to the very real extent that you are yourself in their approval of you…

 

And the problem of individuals who survive ultimately only as members of a group, but who are physically—corporeally—independent, makes morality also a very violent thing, and specifically in the underdog’s explosive force of moral outrage that is, even for us today, a physical ferociousness at the injustice done to the weak at the hands of not the strong, nor even necessarily the right—but just the numerically superior.

 

And it is the underdog who can avail herself of just herself, who aesthetically takes her place on the throne of the anthropologically sacred and functional,

 

As the cryptic—but real—monarch of the group, for she is the will towards meaning, finally, through the moral; and rational coherence is often her chief weapon of defense against and in fact over the group.

 

And who is the underdog?

 

The bodily moral individual in her bodily vulnerability that is the anthropologically structural possibility of you!

 

 

11)Semiotic Function Semiotic City of Christ

“Jesus Still Delivers Today”

In the Old Testament, God appointed some cities as cities of refuge where men are shielded against the wrath of men-slayers and remained secured until the death of the high priest but today, Jesus our high priest ever lives, therefore, there is no end to our security-Num.35:6/Rev. 1:18

 

__________________________

Bishop David Oyedepo (Winners Chapel Int’l Lanham, MD)

Numbers 35:6

“Six of the towns you give the Levites will be cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone may flee. In addition, give them forty-two other towns.

Rev.1:18

I am the Living One; I was dead, and now look, I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

 

Commentary

And so just as the figure of Christ is also an iconic representation of our murdering him (additionally to an imagery narrative of sacrifice, that is the Alpha and the Omega who is also subject and object), Oyedepo portarys human violence as also part of the indignity of our primary, bodily nature, from which we also need refuge that would be the very anthropological function of a Christian semiotics, that becomes ultimately a very much necessary extrinsic physiological defining of the individual; and given that your primary—physically core—nature is understood and codified as a burden, it is in fact from this that Christ releases you—that is the crucial part from a structurally anthropological standpoint (although to do this, death must be also codified as—not desirable, exaclty, but still a form of reward if you have lived in Christ.

 

And so the idea of sin within a Christian conceptual imagery as a living, aesthetic force of physiological control and definition, corresponds structurally, of course, to the problem of individual members of a human group killing other members of that same group—that is the central problem of human groups per se; and that as of agriculture is compounded by the circumstances of human experience as a physioloigcal mode of being that has been substituted by sedentary life which thus essentially must seek out physioloigcal opportunity towards its own structural invigoration—because it can no longer be physiologically in the way it was previous to agriculture;

 

In this sense, prior to agriculture there can be no art in the way we understand it; and generally, aesthetic experience is itself physiological opportunity, that in regards to nomadic, hunting-gather groups is of course not as necessary, given that such groups live physiologically and in contexts of close to constant movement.

 

Agrarian-based anthropology is not physiological in this way, and so must seek out and create physiological opportunity (that is culture, finally, as balance between group stability in basically sedentary contexts, and the servicing of the phsyiological demands of human experience; physiological experience and being that must be understood as not being able to evolve its way out of its evolutionarily original and primary configuration);

 

And semiotic expanse—as structurally the only space thus to advance in—becomes essentially a social creation and construct, in a new way of being in the physiologically conceptual itself; that because it is a permanent social act of being, it is in itself totemic, less physical and to a very great degree a figement of the physiological mind; that depends, additionally on the supression as much as possible of immediate, intra-group violence among individuals—most crucially because in stable, sedentary contexts the traumatic effects of interpersonal violence are all the more devastating.

 

Chiefly, because you are no longer you used to it—and you shouldn’t be!

 

Thank you Jesus!

(Seriously!)

 

 

12) Science  Religion Physio-Semiotics (and Physiological Milieu)

 

Science VERSUS the Unknown

Refuses to posit on to it (though sometimes it does, but not formally);

-Is in only what it knows, not what it doesn’t.

-Works against the unknown, to the extent that there is no unknown (and so is only what it knows, and only that which it can actually speak about (Wittgenstein, dixit));

-Is also what it can conjecture, hypothesizes; so ultimately can also be a form of reasoned—empirically-determined—conjecture and so methodical, rational imposition (very much along the lines of religious conceptual imposition)

-Becomes clearly a power mechanism also in a physiological sense.

 

Religion VERSUS the Unknown

-Posits on it (because it can; because a posit in regards to the unknown cannot be contradicted)

-Inevitably becomes a form of contextual stability that, however, enters into a form of contradiction with the nature of human physiological experience—in religion’s needing to in fact preserve the unknown!

-Thus it should be clear that cultural definition is human physiological contention, that, given the violence of human physiologically rational imposition (in regards originally to religion itself), can only be understood and universally as a violently wrought form of tentative balance; and violent above all in man’s physiologically rational nature.

 

 

• Religion Posits Higher Omnipotent Self Exactly that which you would be if you could in fact overcome, go beyond the physical limitation that defines you; that is thus a super self. Individual and group relate totemically to conceptual entity they have posited, that is elastic and malleable precisely in regards to changing, collective circumstances. So within the limits of the collective and culturally-posited the individual is both contained (as a form of comfort as stability, and physiological complacency finally) while being free at the same time in the very physiological nature of experience and its perception; that becomes freedom of the corporally rational self within an also inevitable physiology of inference as natural patrimony of physical, bodily experience; that is, however, intensely curtailed and given that a basic and broader cultural meaning is already imposed on the individual whom thus is spared the task of physio-rationally imposing meaning herself on reality from scratch, but only limitedly and in a certain sense always only auxiliary to the nature of culturally specific, anthropological logic.
• Science: Posits itself—tacitly—as invincible in its physically limited entity (and so does not renounce it); and lives physiologically against the unknown, in a permanent posture of rational aggression against it—that becomes physiological (necessarily in itself) also; and although the violence of science is its very rationality—and to the bitter, bitter end—it is itself a physiological mode of relating to reality, and so curiously similar on this point to the spiritual itself which is ultimately really about human physiology, through time, anyway).
• Religion could be understood, finally, as a positing of a human ideal in the divine that human groups use physio-totemically towards an at least functional resolution of the problem of human groups and the individual; an ideal that becomes a permanent process of physiological, physio-totemic approximation towards a higher mode of group cohesion in progressively more complex social structure; and it is the anthropological stability such phsyio-semiotic mechanisms provide that universally allow for higher forms of rationally-posited, text-based cultural experience (and eventually in regards to Western experience, particularly the Italian Renaissance, and the conceptual possibility of science itself—paradoxically in origin as of a renewed delight with physical experience!)
• Science, on the other hand, inexorably accelerates cultural change, in the form of technology that human physiology quickly adapts to; and that because of the nature of physiological experience, becomes itself a wild form of permanent invigoration of the anthropologically structural albeit in regards to a human physiology that is essentially and at its deepest core immutable, given that it is no longer open to the force of human natural selection (and so cannot obviously evolve.) And this circumstance—in the immutability of the nature of human experience that can thus only be invigorated through change, but never really altered in itself—becomes one among several other indications of a hollow man quality of experience, that to be effectively real and stable, must necessarily attach itself to higher ideals (that are ultimately of a spiritual nature and depth, even if they are not directly related to the superiorly divine); but that science in and of itself, has never effectively provided humanity. And one of the reasons for this is that science, like religion, also anthropologically removes and exiles the bodily (that science refers to as subjectivity); but science, however, does not cryptically reinforce individuality the way cultures (and so religious-based anthropological spaces) do, and cryptically—physio-aesthetically—against and in contradiction to their own culturally rational and semiotic posits—science is exactly what it says it is, although it ultimately does not understood the physiological aspect of its own entity. And that is historically a serious problem for everyone.
• To the point that very often and typically, religion still persists to this day as the ultimate foundation of anthropological stability, as the underlying moral base to even science itself—and this very much outrageously; as if science were to be more of a comfort provider of technology and physiological engagement as the invigorated, structural stability it produces—and given that it cannot posit itself higher conceptual forms of meaning for people to live by and under, while at the same time disavowing (pretty much completely) any intellectual attempt to this effect as the serious positing of higher conceptual understandings, but that cannot be unequivocally proven.
• What is Orange?

 

 

 

 

 

13)Hazañas humanas de superación biológica y cultural

1)Defenestración del canibalismo intragrupal y familiar;

2)Defenestración de en general la fuerza de selección natural intragrupal.

3)Capacitación técnica aprendida de la agricultura que nos aboca a estados sedentarios históricos progresivamente más afincados.

4) El despegue semiótico cultural que la agricultura permitió—que en verdad exigía, técnica y estructuralmente debido a naturaleza permanente fisiológica humana que dejó efectivamente de evolucionar.

5) El lenguaje humano finalmente escrito y la capacitación cultural de transmisión diacrónica de su propia esencia semiótica-y por tanto culturalmente también fisiológica-a través del tiempo más allá de una actualidad real, física según una geometría socio-situacional de oprobio (respecto la biología individual, los otros y las nociones conceptuales que a estos les definan); que originalmente del ADN humano (remontándose ciertamente hasta al inicio zoomorfa de la especie), el oprobio es asimismo vector socio-grupal de la esencia fisiológica-cultural y también conceptual a través del tiempo y más allá de la muerte física individual.

6) La forja lógica-cultural y conceptual de lo divino es asimismo una forma de mediación propuesta sobre las circunstancias crípticamente opróbicas del individuo frente al grupo, como verdadero estado y posibilidad de la gracia divina social y no solo respecto la capacidad individual de contención fisiológica de sí mismo ante las consecuencia temidas del comportamiento propio; sino que, como un super yo de proyección que está por encima de lo opróbico, las divinidades tienen un poder propuesto igualmente sobre la fuerza numérica de los grupos humanos; que es una forma una vez más de superación-de principio a fin humana-respecto la configuración base y subyacente de la mecánica feroz y bastante inmisericorde de los grupos humanos, y de cómo la individualidad universal y corpórea se relaciona con ellos a partir crucialmente de los contextos históricos ya sedentarios.

 

_______________

Y posiblemente, es también una de las inconvenientes de la espacio cultural entendido como arte, y cualquier clase de refinamiento estético, en el hecho de que remite al menos subliminalmente a una orden superior estructural de naturaleza viviente sí, pero claramente diacrónico, que no debe de sentar muy bien a la vitalidad corporal y también existencial nuestra; o esto desde luego no siempre y claramente para algunos, nunca jamás. Porque, claro, a todos nos sobrepasa individualmente.

 

Religion and Science: Can both be considered similarly in the same light; that is, as also forms of transcending what is essentially physical limitation and the physiological circumstance of sedentary experience (that in fact requires some form of transcending, given that human physiology is consolidated before agriculture and thus a product of a prior anthropological context.) And that as of sedentary experience, the only real form of invigorated movement is in the semiotic itself, that is also structurally determined by a new need to in fact live physiologically in the conceptual and semiotic—that thus makes the positing of a higher arbitrating power under which man can totemically govern himself, inevitable (in the case of religion); while science drives towards a similar objective, but through a different mode of relating to the unknown that no longer physio-rationally imposes on it, but rather seeks to counter it through a physiology of inference, and that in some way could be understood as a more primarily original physiological mode of being but only intellectually, rationally—in the abstract and theoretically semiotic; but that in many ways is a savagery of physio-rational inference, and thus equally physiological in its historical form as once again an alternative mode of physio-rational imposition, finally, towards the very same ultimate objectives as that of religion: a form of physiologically-invigorated comfort in rational understanding and meaning as human  imposition, through time. And so science understood in this way, inversely allows for the conceptualization of religion itself as also a similar form and mode of physiologically-rational, human imposition; but that in both cases is in fact ultimately the same force of physiological, rational imposition necessarily as of agriculture, that thus become different modes of response to the same circumstance of agriculture, and the contradiction that is a human physio-biology of movement in, however, fixed and sedentary contexts (that sees thus the logical posting of cultural and secondary proxy physiologies which only cryptically—and so seldom openly and rationally—service the deeper physical and physiological realties of human experience culture and its posited rationality, of course, must ignore and effectively deny.)

 

 

 

14) Cariz fisiológica de la experiencia humana y social[15aug16]

Structural need to live in need

Need as possibility of knowing vulnerability,

 And perhaps possibility to still suffer

 

 

At the core of opprobrium is bodily vulnerability; behind morality at its base is bodily vulnerability. Morality begins in individual, bodily vulnerability. And key aspect of group and social structure, as of bodily vulnerability, is in human perception itself and the individual who begins to know what she is in the especially visual confirmation of that which she is not—that becomes the logically natural context of the possibility of empathy itself, from the individual’s original sense of self as bodily vulnerability back onto the social, and particularly in regards to other physiologically immediate individuals. And so in the other is the self, known to its self in exactly what she is not that becomes the anticipated—feared—consequences of one’s own behavior:

 

And the need for physiologically conceptual ascent into the abstract and semiotic is thus structurally obvious—and structurally determined, given that after agriculture and sedentary experience, people can no longer be only what they intrinsically are in their physiology.

 

And so does the semiotically structural and its geometry of biological opprobrium, claim at its very center the individually physical and corporeal, that is bodily vulnerability of the individual in regards first and foremost to the group itself; and in the very individual essence of needing to need that becomes simultaneously the true force of cultural experience as also the reason why culture is culture.

 

But how then can need be satisfied without jeopardizing structural stability itself?

 

Individuality creates new needs through the nature of physiological experience itself, and it’s very essence of needing to need to be.

 

Culture is equilibrium in this sense; and the individually corporeal is the true—cryptic—center and foundation of the physiologically semiotic and collectively structural.

 

Because it would seem that only as of the bodily comes morality; rationality and perhaps the possibility of meaning at all. But in the anthropology of planet Earth, historically, only groups ultimately survive, over—and through individuality its self.

 

That is the paradox.

 

 

 

 

 

15) Una ambivalencia antropológica exigida   [30aug16]

1.Películas en las que se ven criminales urdiendo su planes mafiosos de la consecución de dinero pero comunicándose por teléfono móvil, que en otros tiempos se llamaban teléfonos celulares que quiere decir conceptualmente que cada teléfono es una unidad atómica de un cuerpo-o sistema y red-más grande y extendido; lo cual denota, empero indirectamente y muy a lo callado, que de hecho se pueda concebir este contexto humano de comunicación del lenguaje en sí y en realidad como un sistema técnica y lógicamente bajo el control de otros; todo lo cual, si lo vas pensando con un poco de esfuerzo y rigor, apunta a la muy posible situación de que actividades ilícitas de mayor caldo y enjundia son del todo inconcebibles y dado que los actores humanos integrantes del sistema a nivel de usuario no deben considerar lógicamente que cuenten en realidad con privacidad alguna, pues incluso con solo el metadata la realidad socio-estructural de la entidad individual humana queda totalmente expuesta a la comprensión de terceros; pero que muy lógicamente tampoco debe descartarse que de hecho el contenido real de las conversaciones también esté simplemente a la disposición de los mismos operarios, y dado que estos no tienen finalmente porqué dar cuenta de nada de lo que hacen a nadie y ni siquiera judicialmente, en vista de la realidad evidente (publica y periodística) de un uso solo cosmético y abiertamente fantoche de las instancias judiciales norteamericanas hacia la consecución de una cobertura propia solo de jure ilusoria y patentemente falsa. Sin embargo, el nivel de usuario fisiológico y fisiológicamente libre permanece naturalmente y siempre que la comprensión técnica-racional del individuo no vaya minando esa sensación de libertad, que es una libertad humana pero solo en la vertiente fisiológica de la misma; pero que solo con la sospecha incipiente racional y bien fundada la experiencia libre pero solo fisiológica se va enfermando, dudando de sí misma y torciéndose. Que quiere decir que no es preciso que la NSA ni confirme ni niega nada, finalmente…

 

Pero de más importancia es el problema de la representación cinematográfica y que, como desde medios de los noventa es impossible que una banda de butroneros como el de Robert De Niro en Heat (1995) pudiera de hecho existir-salvo en el caso de que se hubieran servido de palomas mensajeros para comunicarse-su hazañas épicas cinematográficas de una individualidad que intente imponerse (que es la función propia antropológica de la individualidad, en un sentido muy real) resultan del todo increíbles, del todo irreales.

 

Y un problema que se constata en lo representacional respecto al equilibrio antropológico está pues anunciado.

 

El problema: la destrucción del contexto humano del oprobio biológico individual, pues la naturaleza social de moralidad como dilema moral que el individuo ha de llevar a cuestas respecto a sí mismo, solo es posible desde un mínimo de intimidad individual. Que quiere decir que se sustituye finalmente una fisiología individual de dilema moral como libertad por la obediencia, a secas y determinada exclusivamente por el terror del individual a las consecuencias ultimas de ser un individuo.

 

2. http://www.caffereggio.net/2016/08/31/culpables-y-responsables-de-oscar-sanchez-alonso-en-el-pais/

Por eso, aunque se entiende lo expresado por Máximo, no puede negarse lo obvio:

algunos se habrán cruzado de brazos;

algunos habrán incurrido en injustas generalizaciones;

algunos se habrán rasgado las vestiduras de forma sectaria y maniquea;

algunos se habrán hecho cómplices del desfalco económico e institucional; algunos habrán cultivado una labor democrática de mayor madurez y caliber

… Cada cual tendrá que responsabilizarse de lo que le corresponda, pero en conjunto, como sociedad, claro que hemos hecho.

 

Las tragaderas de quita y pon, y la indignación a tiempo parcial

son dos caminos en los que lo relevante no es lo acontecido, sino la autoría de lo que acontece. Y esos hábitos no solo se estilan en el seno de tal o cual partido, sino que también se frecuentan entre aquella ciudadanía que decidió ejercer de hooligan (contra el adversario) y de clac (ante los que cataloga como suyos). Llevarse las manos a la cabeza solo ante las siglas ajenas, y mirar para otro lado cuando el desbarre es de los propios, resulta la antítesis de lo cívico.

 

Por supuesto que es preciso distinguir entre culpables y responsables.

No es lo mismo robar, que votar a ladrones, por poner un ejemplo.

Y no es lo mismo votar a alguien del que desconocemos su desempeño ilícito, que reincidir en el voto cuando ya se ha constatado su palabrería o su abyección.

 

Siempre hay gradaciones, sí. Pero lo innegable es que a la ciudadanía también le salpica una responsabilidad.

 

Puede resultar muy pinturero eludir nuestras responsabilidades; pero esos escapismos… nunca pintan bien.

 

 

Escapismos nunca pintan bien es sin embargo el caracter críptico de la cultura y los espacios antropológicos, pero ¿de qué exactamente hemos de huir y escapar? De una gravedad y presion atmósferica excesivas de comprension racional, pero respecto la libertad nuestra precisamente fisiológica.

 

Porque lo racional efectivamente define colectiva y civilmente las posibilidades nuestras del ser y estar fisiologicos (que se dice una fisiología semitoicamente definida, por el bien finalmente civil de todos, y que se inicia al decir de Victor Gomez Pin precisamente en el lenguaje, en sí mismo un espacio fisológico al mismo tiempo que semoticamente racional como orden y patron, que todo individuo del grupo comparte al menos mínimamente, que es orden físio-semiótico y culturalmente racional porque compartido.) Pero la racionalidad en este sentido normativo y cultural (necesariamente) puede desde luego verse trastocada en el conocimiento de verdades superiores, que técnica y empírcamente mayores resultan no obstantes nefastos respecto las posibilidades físio-semióticas de los indiviudos, y dañinos por tanto, a la misma estructuralidad humana antropologica.

 

Todo lo cual desmboca en la difícil situación en que el tener razón es estar tremendamente equivocado.

 

Porque la libertad humana antropológica es la libertad fisiológica del ser y estar, cíclica y alternativamente en estados de vigorización y reposo; entre puntos siempre estáticos y estables, pero que desembocan en el  inexorable tránisto fisiológico hacia nuevos estados de estímulo. Porque en cierto sentido, la libertad fisiológica de invigoración vital es respecto lo racional en sí; una racionalidad propuesta que los contextos agrícolas han rentabilzar en pos de la posibilidad social, colectiva y estable, que la viabilidad funcional, estrucutral humana y antropologica ha de infundir luego con la crucial tonificación fisiológica, que es el estado biologico propio de la experiencia humana, sin duda, hasta que el cuerpo lo aguante-,

 

Equilibrio antropológico es pues precisamente respecto a estos dos ámbitos de lo racional culturalmente compartido, culturalmente impuesto al individuo (mediante el oprobio biologico); frente a la tonificación del estimulo fisiológico que es lo unico que da finalmente el sentido causal y profundo de aquél, haciéndonoslo de hecho supportable.

 

Claramente, entonces, una agresion racional (ahora empírica y fundamentada) respecto lo solo cultramente semiótico significa de cualquier forma un trastocamiento del orden lógico cultural (simbólico, si se prefiere, aunque el término correcto sin duda es semiótico por cuanto se refiere a la estructuralidad humana antropologica, no la naturaleza de lo percibido).

 

¿Qué hacer, pues?

 

A pintar, ‘stá claro.

 

 

6sep16

16) The Culturally Rational

versus Physiological Freedom

versus AT&T Anthropology

 

 

1) One is the cryptic causal foundation of the other; and as such can the culturally rational not always be coherent. Chiefly because culture has always feared and violently struck out at physiological anomie. And so the reason of life, after agriculture, is that collective, structural viability requires that people have one—that is, that they rationally project their individual physiology, necessarily towards culturally reasonable conceptual—semiotic—entities; this is, of course, not to say people are not free in their physiology to be what they want to be, but it does imply being an individual is only as of the conceptual possibilities of the cultural space one’s physical existence takes place in and is dependent on; and that whatever form of defiance human personality eventually builds itself upon, it is also always in regards to specific cultural norms and a particular culturally-bound experiencing of the conceptual.

 

2) The reason for the culturally rational is thus that it is permanently against physiological anomie, that effectively makes not only language but logic itself a form of necessary—minimum—standardization of the individual and that could be considered the better part of identity itself. But clearly, however, the foundation of logic is also cultural—anthropological, even—as an originally particular sensory experiencing of a specific geographic context, by an originally particular human group. And the particular body experience of particular geographic and environmental contexts produces a specific form of common sense that is the very much bodily foundation of a specific cultural logic, finally. Thus the collective will towards semiotic definition of the physiological is also regionally different, although universal in essence as stability through definition, which, in regards to human physiological experience can only ultimately be a meaningful—purposed—engagement of it. And so all cultures, to one degree or another of both a will to rationally impose on the physiological, as well as also a tolerance of it, posit different mechanisms and systems of the conceptual over and through the individually physiological—that is conceptual according to whatever common sense permanently local, bodily experience and over the generations as ended up depending on towards its own functional, collective viability (survival originally).

 

3) Thus the very reason for culture is ultimately that which originally so very much terrified it; that continues permanently through time and once again to threaten it—given that human physiology, as of agriculture, can no longer evolve in itself. Systemically, however, the threat of physiological anomie is simply the danger of non-definition, and that on careful scrutiny comes to be understood as the real motor of the culturally-posited rational itself (as thus not really an enemy, but rather the natural, physiologically invigorated impetus of individuals, especially in their youth and into middle age). But clearly invigorated human groups originally made for more resilient human groups, and thus it seems clear and universally, that specific anthropological contexts seek not to completely suppress the physiological force of individuality, but rather make it the cryptic center of even the culturally rational itself, and in a very much secret contradiction to and paradox with the logic and narratives of specific cultural experience. And so the foundation of individuality is culturally inherited, but cultural systems cryptically (and necessarily) accommodate individual physiology and personality by allowing—perhaps even secretly encouraging—individuals to define themselves against and even beyond the cultural itself, that is thus initially the reason culture needs to be culture; but with the added advantage that, although human physiology is in fact permanently defined and constituted, cultural systems clearly live to evolve!

 

4) And thus not only does the stability of the culturally rational need to be invigorated (through simply and permanently human physiology), to be truly stable culture needs to be challenged that becomes thus the need once again to impose itself; and culture is alive in the very challenge that it is brought to it, that is the impetus of its own force through time. But, of course, the circumstance of the physiological is stimulus (through intrinsic need as of specific spatial context, that can be understood as a permanent drive to towards the attainment of satisfaction—or broadly comfort); and the physiological thus never vies well, all the time and in regards to all the phases of individual development with the rational. And worse still, human rationality is very much physiological, being rational conviction much more important than actual rational understanding itself—for bodily experience is bodily in its very singular limitation, and thus can never really know beyond what it can actually apprehend (and this often in a strictly sensorial sense!) But rational conviction has long been demeaned, and in fact overshadowed by the culturally considered higher rigors of the rationally analytical. And this must now be critiqued.

 

5) Because the rationally analytical, while also always present in all cultural manifestations in all historical periods, has become today as of Western experience (originally) a form itself of physiological anomie—or this in at least the worst distortion of it. Specifically because of its obvious power of material transformation, it has tended to work against the anthropological configuration of human groups—in specifically how empirical imposition—to in fact impose itself the way it has done as of industrialization—posits the methodological elimination of bodily individuality in, first of all, the observer herself; that is a sort of objectifying of the human agent as of the object of analysis; which as a methodological approach, it goes without saying, has been powerfully effective, but that as an ontological position becomes ominously sinister as an observer who renounces the bodily, in regards ultimately thus also to other human beings whose bodily experience similarly—and historically—has become analytically irrelevant also. And thus in the renouncing of the bodily (this that is referred to as subjectivity) is the technical impossibility of the moral (given that opprobrium is only effective in the individual’s experiencing of bodily vulnerability; that is the reason why the moral—perhaps ultimately rational—possibilities of a computer are no possibilities, no how.) But physiological freedom, as the cryptic cornerstone to the survival and, later, collective civilized viability of human groups, is also historically trigger and detonator of the distortion of science itself, in its very cultural physologicalization beyond just simply the methodology of a very sophisticated, technical form of dorking around with what is in front of you.

 

Because the freedom of science—its original ontological force—is that it removes itself from the opprobic as a physiology initially of only inference, regardless of the at least theoretical, social consequences of its endeavor; but a physiology of inferences is in itself a powerful thing, that cultural has in fact always carefully controlled, and given that its own stability has always resided in physio-rational definition as limitation: for Icarus is cryptically more than just an admonition, but culture itself cannot be Icarus!

 

6) One significant example of just this is in economics—or more exactly, in the administration through time of business models—always in regards ultimately to human physiological aggregates, that sees a very much analytical force of analysis and highly refined, technical precision, applied however to the necessarily unaware human object; in such a way and method that physiologically invigorated experience—that naturally precludes to a great degree higher forms of rational awareness—becomes chief tactical asset of technical imposition and that (in regards to banks, and to some extent all business models that seek essentially the same financial stability of account balances, through time) works permanently to maintain this informational discrepancy through multiple strategies of conceptual vagueness, never-clearly-understood technical circumstances and difficulties; and through a very much fostering itself of physiological freedom of individuals, but ultimately—spuriously—towards just its own reinforced, leveraged position over human contexts, through time.

 

AT&T Anthropology in effect is about the control of aggregate human, physiological contexts, through time and in regards to human experience only in terms of purchases based on new, induced and very much fabricated needs—all of which can only come ultimately through a force of impingement on the culturally conceptual itself. Thus AT&T Anthropology, in its historical form and towards its technical climax after 1980, could have only come into being through a furious, never-before-seen process of media consolidation that computer cybernetics only made all the more formidable and absolute, after the early 1990s. And thus a higher realm of truly intellectual, physiologically rational endeavor and cultural entity, eventually becomes only in itself a culturally functional cliché, seemingly as a higher point on the cultural spectrum of light and understanding, but that is only, finally, a form of just lip service and auxiliary support to a physiological obliviousness the culturally structural cryptically founds itself on, as thus a form in fact of anthropological context in itself—and with the added convenience and advantage that structural agency never has to feel guilty about what it is nor ever account for its own reality of cultural, physio-semiotic dominance, as long as a loftier semiotics of cultural cliché holds…

 

But AT&T Anthropology is defective anthropology, specifically in the fact that it does not work towards the reinforcement of the individual, as natural anthropological spaces do, but rather permanently towards just its own structural leveraging of the human physiological and aggregate where the big money is and has always been!

 

And it is human physiological freedom that AT&T Anthropology so fiercely protects, as a form of living hagiography of praise towards individuality, but that paradoxically must refrain from ever openly explaining where its real structural legitimacy actually comes from; that is no legitimacy at all, but rather simply a structural leveraging of human—and consumer—aggregate physiological experience, through time.

 

Because de facto control and dominance over the minds—and thus the bodies—of the human, physiological medium must shirk any pretense whatsoever to legitimacy, or at least as a rational and reasoned exposé;

 

For ultimately cultural agency in this sense knows not even a real purpose, except for the physiological in its object, that is also its own physiological impetus;

 

And so, to the extent that it permanently, definitively avoids a rational understanding of its own entity, culture itself becomes very much only a form of physiological flight, through time.

 

Thus must we conclude that human collective and anthropological experience does not really need to mean anything at all, but rather ultimately founds itself on something closer to physiologically rational and semiotic pretext;

 

That then logically prompts the question as to what exactly is wrong with that?

 

____________________________

 

 

 

INDEX

1)  M.PAGEL’S GROUP OF MONKEYS SCENARIO AND VIRUS MECHANISM DIACHRONY OF OPPROBRIUM

2)Extrinsically Defined Physiologically Collective Structure

3)Business Anthropology Sketches (Orange)

4)BIG SYSTEMIC HOUSES

5)DANCER (Eli Wallach in The Line Up (1958))

6)La violencia de Billy en A History of Violence(2005) versus la violencia físio-moral de Tom Stall e hijo

7) Geometric Opprobrium Games

8) Two Families of Objects (From Umberto Eco Travels in Hyperreality, 1990)

 

 

 

 

1)  M.PAGEL’S GROUP OF MONKEYS SCENARIO AND VIRUS MECHANISM DIACHRONY OF OPPROBRIUM

A group of monkeys is in a room with a banana tethered form the ceiling. They can reach the banana by hopping up on a box. But whenever one of them does this, they are all sprayed with water. Monkeys don’t like water…[because of genetically imposed fear of crocodiles hiding under surface of rivers, a form of aversion to depth and the threat hence of what is there but cannot be observed]

 

So, after a while, they all avoid hopping up on the box and even restrain each other form doing so. Then a monkey is removed and replaced by a new monkey. It is naïve so it climbs up on the box to get the banana. The others quickly pull it down and eventually it too stops trying to get the banana.

 

[DIACHRONY]

One by one the monkeys get replaced this way, and one by one the naïve ones are trained by the others not to jump up on the box, until none of the original monkeys remain.

 

At this point not one of the monkeys knows why, but they all avoid climbing the box to get the banana. As far as they know, they have always behaved that way [NEW DIACHRONY]

 

 

_________________________

Taken and adapted from Wired For Culture. Origins of the Human Social Mind (2012)

 

 

2)Extrinsically Defined Physiologically Collective Structure

Can in fact be expressed semiotic and rationally through an analogy and imagery of an exile—literarily in the story of Cain (for example), who only figuratively (narratively) goes anywhere at all, but that rather is a narrative explanation and version of a physiologically cultural process of extrinsic, opprobrium-imposed physiological definition; that is the conceptualized story of expulsion primed however in and by the ultimate force of individual biological opprobrium—that makes said narrative physiologically binding for the individual in the individual’s own terror of the threat of expulsion, and that becomes on aggregate the phsyio-anthropologically structural itself, as the very collectively structural mechanics of at least that specific human group, defined in and under said narrative.

 

A literary Love-Hate Story

Artistic ambivalence thus can be understood as reflecting the structural ambivalence of individuality itself, the contradiction that is belonging as also a terror of rejection in regards to the individual’s singular experiencing of the physical, but only in the embrace of the group that never can actually fully ever be, and for as long one’s singular physical experience remains forever the true barrier to real communion with the group.

 

And so, quite logically, there must also arise resentment (that people seldom really understand as such) in regards to what is a deep and silent brutality of the anthropological itself and that most bitterly can physiologically push the individual to despise exactly that which she is at all levels really dependent on; while at times brought to effervescence, so to speak, in the fact that—quite logically as well—the group itself knows not either what are the deeper, true causes of its own physiological responses and particularly in regards to individual transgression—that is clearly, the nature and problem of individuality itself as a form of permanent in fact structural transgression, anyway.

 

 

3)Business Anthropology Sketches

 

1.What is this that is The Big Systemic?

When as a supermarket shopper who goes to great lengths and effort to find food items on sale and at only a temporary discount price (that frequently and prior to entering the establishment you are not expecting at all) through long aisles and mental scenarios of 3 for 5 calculations and comparisons of actual volume price regarding sale price versus the normal price; and on sale items versus non-sale competing brands; and as this super market shopper you become in a physiology of rational quest, calculation and inference, The Big Systemic appears when, at the final check out moment (after additionally waiting for your fellow shoppers to pay for their own items) you find out that you had mistakenly perceived items on sale that were not actually on sale; through really no fault of your own, but because in your physiological intensity of quest, calculation and inference, you misread, misinterpreted-or misunderstood-the price labels in regards to the items said labels were actually making reference to;

 

And The Big Systemic is what is before you in the physiological build-up and expense that has just been your shopping experience, as you stand before the cashier or store attendant in that final check-out moment, and additionally in your finally knowing that the logic that had motivated you is false; and the contemplation of The Big Systemic—if you should in fact care to see it—begins in the very moment, in that situation, in which you decide you don’t give a damn about going back and re-selecting your food items:

 

The Big Systemic thus becomes only for you something like a physiological inconvenience, that when you look at it form the standpoint of the hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of store shoppers, chain-wide, and in all the company’s stores—is in fact the business administration vision of economic planning and management, through time.

 

And because for the individual, this proposed physiological experience that is your shopping experience (that is actually fun, in a certain way), could only ever be understood as simply that: an inconvenience; but that in regards to hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of other individuals, becomes significantly more valid as a moral dilemma, in at least your own understanding.

 

Because The Big Systemic is not you—is not really about you as an individual—but rather is naturally a bigger system you end up forming part of, and that is unquestionably based on the situational discrepancy that is your physiological experience, in regards to a structural logic as strategy as a rational tool and instrument of the utilization of individual physiological experience (but that as higher-tiered agency of calculation and system management, is not, at least initially, physiological in itself).

 

And so an inconvenience that is actually fun (in the sense of an invigorated, logic-based activity) depends crucially on its being an activity of a certain physiologically rational intensity as a quite serious behavioral ploy towards business viability;

 

That, of course as a system, gives jobs to people, creates wealth and contributes directly to a possible American socio-economic effervescence of basically finance, ultimately…

 

So how are you going to really complain, anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

2. AGGREGATE STATISTIC PROPOSALS OF ANALISIS AND CONFUSION

Say, for example, Americans watch an average of 4 hours of TV (hypothetically and in the terms of a former understanding of culture) how many aggregate hours of TV are being watched by individuals a day?

 

And there would seem to be confusion in regards to the logical limit of only 24 hours to an actual day, but that is really more like a preference of our minds (because perhaps of the bodily nature of experience itself) and that the paradigms of our understanding—that we also read and reinforce our sense of self from—also share this same tendency to see things from the standpoint of the individual—and even in regards to a statistical prototype of individual, over time.

 

But of course there in fact are the number of hours in day as there are people who live those hours, on Earth—potentially, or at least in regards to specific consumer-cultural contexts; and this is a form of incongruence, at least initially and in our first step of approach towards its conceptualization;

 

That is to say, if the average American (statistically) watches 4 hours of television a day, 1275.6* million TV hours are experienced daily, in a single 24 hour period; that initially would seem to go against logic that is ultimately the logic of individual bodily experience, subject to the circumstances of planet Earth (as all life is) and the time it takes the planet to complete a full revolution on its axis—and perhaps owing to our tendency to conceptualize experience as in fact the way we actually live it.

 

Perhaps in regards also to the awkwardness (grotesqueness, even) of conceptualizing what is strictly physiological, body experience in regards to millions of human beings, that effectively—perhaps terrifyingly—goes beyond the comfort of our own self-understanding as an individual.

 

Because to understand aggregate experience, you of course must move conceptually beyond physical experience (that is, of individuality which is the only experience you actually know); and so from this standpoint, the conceptual trappings as insulation of culture itself and the comfort culture conceptually provides us—so that we may be physically at peace with ourselves in our very limitation and powerlessness—is suddenly stripped away in regards to a technical and very much clinical vision of what collectively structural experience of human beings, through time, actually consists of.

 

Because it is, at first, simply uncouth in the untrained eye’s conceptual perception of it.

 

Curiously, however, form the standpoint of the administration of human intuitions and collective entities such as business models in regards to aggregate markets—markets that are essentially, collective and bulk human physiological experience, through time—to say that some one billion hours of television are consumed every 24 hour period in the United States, is of course, not incongruent at all; neither is it perceived awkwardly, neither hesitantly, nor much less as uncouth:

 

If you are somehow and professionally connected to the television industry (who really isn’t in some way, ultimately, through the socio-economic structure it creates), and especially as an executive in regards to the real living object of your technical-economic endeavor, such a presentation of data is in fact crucial to the very technical coherence it is assumed you work in and under.

 

But for people and the average Joe on the street (so to speak) it is a contemplation as a form of disturbance, psychologically—that is physiologically disturbing in its perception; as a vision and thus contemplative experience beyond culture itself, and given that culture also consists of a conceptual comfort and placidness of ideas for people to live—and be—in at the exclusion of even concepts (and the unpleasant mental images they can create.)

 

Thus does there in fact exist a psychological-physiological discrepancy between technical thought and its implementation (at least in regards to business models), and the actual physiological nature of cultural experience from the standpoint of just bodily individuality.

 

And it begs the question why wouldn’t a technical effort of economic strategy, and planning towards economic gain seek to avail itself of this very discrepancy, in regards to a body social that in its very cultural mettle is naturally oblivious (necessarily and in its very quality of being culturally) to higher, anthropological forms of conceptual, technical imposition?

 

____________________________

*Technical nuance and correction of calculation as an average that cannot later be extrapolated back to the aggregate (against its very quality of being only an average): Google listed population of The United States is 318.9 million [multiplied by] 4; all the same, the point can still be made in regards ultimately to a discrepancy of perception, between technical planning and implementation versus the physiologically sensory of individual experience—which in fact becomes the object of a technical, higher-tired and behaviorist approach; and in regards additionally to a conceptual perception of a clearly disturbing quality for people, that is in fact outside of culturally-contained, anthropologically-defined experience itself… And by adding a twist to a popular phrase perhaps a good description is given, in thinking inside the box, but from outside and over the box that conveys the technical, structural agency herein conceptually implied.

 

 

 

3. An AT&T Anthropology (Orange)

No longer an act of consumption as choice, rather the creation of contexts in which all physiological options of the individual are set to—and in exchange for—a price; that obviously can only really take place in the physiologically semiotic (or only virtually real), because individual freedom of physical movement, is of course, something considered part and parcel exclusively of individuality as we understand it and within the conceptual limitation—hence definition—our anthropological space and tradition imposes on us; but the physiologically real need not necessarily be physically real, and the assumption that physical experience still belongs to me becomes no more than a conciliatory point, suddenly, of almost only a structural reference;

 

And so what had been the traditional catering to human need and its satisfaction through time, moves from only the auxiliary economic into—through and over—the human physiological itself, as process, implementation and forced cultural evolution that permanently requires an element of duplicity, given a deeper conceptual understanding by individuals would generate some form of defiance, opposition—resistance, finally, to what is the cultural-economic impetus of our time.

 

But serious business administration acumen has undoubtedly always been in the anthropological itself, through time and in regards to aggregate human demographics whose natural state and condition of physiological invigoration as stability—in conjunction with a cultural force of ideas and conceptual definition eventually set against it—ends up dangerously separating human experience from higher forms of purpose—of meaning at all. Because AT&T Anthropology is a strictly a technical form of advance that delegates higher forms of coherence (responsibility, finally) to some force of opposition it depends on to limit its own force of inertia,

 

For it knows not any limits in and of itself.

 

Paradoxically, however, because AT&T Anthropology as only a technical design in regards to living contexts of human physiology towards only technical objectives it cannot openly explain, and while it does effectively engage individual physiological experience that is indeed a form of physiologically invigorated, collective stability—any real and structurally crucial opposition to it is (or at least has been) progressively more and more inconceivable.

 

Historically, however, anthropological balance has always been (paradoxically, once again) in really the structurally covert fostering of individuality itself.

 

Because structural integrity, through time, ultimately depends crucially on it; and while the structural has a center and technical hub, and perhaps a core pillar architectural design and artifice,

 

Only individuals have a heart.

 

Because the greatest comfort anthropology as always provided fiercely against the brutality of the natural world is human intention itself that only the bodily experience of individuality produces.

 

Anthropology has always universally made the problem of individuality really the solution, if you look at it carefully.

 

____________________________________

 

 

4) BIG SYSTEMIC HOUSES

Neighborhoods of individual house developments of a massive, technical extension as a structurally singular unity, but that consists of a body-based illusion of autonomy in regards to physio-bodily experience of individuals in every house, and sub-structural unit, or atomic part; according to an illusory reign of every man and woman as king of his or her house.

 

Culture

Successive realms of two-component movement, inexorably always fueled (propelled) by the technical circumstances of agrarian anthropology—and the contradiction it represents in regards to permanently fixed and non-evolutionary, human physiology;

 

And so is in a certain sense a physiological dead end that must effectively be denied by cultural physio-semiotics, perpetually in movement perpetually as a dance that becomes living analogy of the act of culture and anthropological space: going physically nowhere, but physiologically always in movement, in one direction or another; affirming itself in one sense—and also in its very denial, in another sense, from another or opposite standpoint; that thus as a system depends crucially on different forms of socio-physiological and semiotic division and opposition—that is thus a channeling of the circumstances of physiological difference (age, physio-preference, physio-ideology, and geographic difference) into a form of subtle but furious conflict that depends on the body act of a state of consumer society life to jacket—insulate—itself in a very much mundane possibility of self-affirmation, very much against somebody else as a figment especially of the power individual’s mind and physio-semiotics, but that seldom if ever seeks to fortify itself in deeper forms of conceptualization and thus does not consider nor is ever seriously tempted by, nor attracted to, real forms of physical violence and as self-affirmation, and except only as a form of especially fascinating fear cultural restraint ends up pro-actively depending on in regards to a basically illusive criminal human nature, out there in the shadows perpetually somewhere out there on the urban horizon of the mind…

 

5)DANCER (Eli Wallach in The Line Up (1958))

Structural dead end of agrarian anthropology requires an exercising of physiological invigoration in the only realm really possible that is the physiologically semiotic. Set in San Francisco under the image of highway overpasses only partially completed at the time (and so dead-end abruptly in an overall atmosphere of construction and innuendo of economic mass in still initial, historical effervescence and after WWII), the film situates us preeminent and permanently before the vision and view of the Pacific Ocean, as not only an American no-way-forward towards the West (that has effectively become the Orient and the Far East), but rather in regards to something like the anthropological itself, as a state of now necessarily ritualized physiology and dance (because sedentary, agrarian anthropology is, simply, sedentary);

 

But physiology can only ever be ritualized if its ideas, at least initially, are—or at least feel—free and open towards bigger horizons beyond the physically limited and mundane quotidian; so while ocean imagery of the film is in fact horizon, true expanse takes place in the ideas the film aggressively sets out to portray—and to some extent conceptually nuance—for the viewer:

 

And while the horizon is physically (spatially) just the blue nothingness of open sea, physiologically invigorated transit is truly forced on us through a detailed plot of heroin smuggling (naturally from the Orient into, apparently, a thriving American market); numerous dialogue references (and in the form of objects) are constantly made to Hong Kong, China and Japan, in regards to generally unawares tourists and ship crew members who are targeted by the intelligence units of a gangster organization for the donkey job of passing through US Port Customs in physical possession of quite large amounts of pure heroin they are however not aware of.

 

And the opening scene of the film is in itself of a violent attempt at snatching the drug-laden luggage from an unawares tourist who just got off a ship from the Far East; that becomes a violent shoot-out and a car chase and smash up, as the criminal operative tries to force his way out of the port.

 

And so is the rest of the film a progressively more nuanced repetition of the same attempt, later and in the company of vaudeville-like pair of sociopathic pick-up men and killers, as they operate through a list of additional passengers whose heroine load must also be recovered, but in only a single day and by no later than 4:30 in the afternoon (as the viewer is constantly, subtly reminded of).

 

But anthropological expanse here is the physiological itself (and given that physically can one no longer really go anywhere), in regards especially to a fascinating mythology of the criminal side of human nature, psychology and its violence; always in the shadows, always ready to strike according to its own actually furiously technical needs that is the real motivation in fact of its violence, and at least in this case.

 

And so a pair of anti-individuals become in fact anti-heroes, specifically in the structurally fatalistic problem their personalities and behavior represent for civilized society, but that becomes an escalating tension, structurally, for not only the law enforcement community of San Francisco—and some of its citizens—but also, of course, for the viewer who has been physio-artistically positioned not towards identifying exactly with the criminal fugitives, but certainly pushed towards an awful empathy, perhaps, with the struggle for civilized individuals to actually be civilized, that only if subliminally, is perceived as somehow not a problem just for the criminally insane or asocial.

 

And so structurally, Dancer (Eli Wallach) is all our dance partner as the dark side phantom popular culture—or just culture?—has long ago set out to compensate for the basic physiological immobilization we live in anthropologically, as of in fact agriculture originally, and that makes us analogously also dancers of a ritualized physio-semiotic context of a necessary, collective nature,

 

And given that we can no longer be just physiologically, but rather are condemned to live semiotically, in some working form of ideas and conceptualization agrarian anthropology requires, and that becomes the possibility of the social itself in being exactly NOT just what we physiologically, and physically are.

 

And physio-semiotic invigoration is really the only expanse we’ll ever know, as well.

 

Or would you rather go to war?

 

 

6)La violencia de Billy en A History of Violence(2005) versus la violencia físio-moral de Tom Stall e hijo

La diferencia inicialmente radica en una especie de afición fisiológica (y verdadero gusto personal) de Billy, quien claramente rellena el vacío emocional del psicópata que es con la violencia despiadada y brutal que ejerce sobre otros; pero se ha aficionado a una fisiologia del ejercicio de la violencia irremediablemente que acaba por anular las capas más elevadas y necesariamente social de la personalidad (a igual parece que su compañero de fechorías);

 

Por contra, la parte más luminosa de la historia es de hecho una violencia parecida pero justificada que se origina en la necesidad física finalmente inexorable de defenderse; de ahí que sea una violencia moral, al menos en su origen quizá opróbico de supervivencia corporal sine qua non. Lo que convierte la historia en una suerte de aventura antropológica y físio-psicológica; respecto un presente civilizado, por una parte, y un fantasma—en realidad no solo del pasado personal de Tom, sino antropológicamente y respecto un modo físio-racional diferente y claramente incompatible con la los contextos civilizados, que de hecho éstos defenestran efectivamente y por lo general, del ámbito social real y cívico.

 

Porque el oprobio biológico individual, que es respecto siempre el pertenecer del individuo al grupo (y el terror por tanto de aquél ante el posible rechazo de éste) es también una fuerza alumbradora y reforzante a la vez de la misma individualidad físio-corporal, racional y moral en esto que soy que no es de ellos y que mi propia ímpetu vital por pertenecer simultáneamente no me deja olvidar nunca que es algo así como el intersticio y cruz entre el ser y estar grupal por una parte; y lo obligación físio-racional, moral—por otra—de un inexorable acarrear con la propia individualidad a partir de lo corpóreo personal, en la conciencia vital individual y permanente del mismo;

 

Y viene a ser precisamente respecto a estas dos fuerzas aparentemente contradictorias lo que la semiótica propuesta cultural se esfuerza tanto en atemperar, por medio principalmente de la expulsión perpetua y renovada de Caín, como si dijéramos; que es la defenestración efectiva de la ferocidad del yo oprobico más primario, aquello dentro de nosotros que circunstancialmente—pero legítimamente desde una logica corporal y zoomorfa—experimenta la fuerza de la envidia y los celos (por ejemplo) no como una falta social, sino una verdadera amenaza a la integridad y pertenencia grupal propias del individuo; un estado de terror fisiológico que natural y lógicamente llevará al yo zoomorfa e instintivo hasta matar por eliminar el rival y causante lógico de una temida perdida del individuo respecto la integridad física y corpórea propia, que es asimismo la verdadera fuerza base del oprobio y su biología respecto al pertenecer grupal.

 

La semiótica propuesta y cultural, esto es, las ideas que rigen la posibilidad social de un grupo humano antropológico concreto, sojuzgan parcialmente los instintos más primarios y fundamentalmente opróbicos del yo zoomorfa y corporal adueñándose la semiótica misma de la biología humana opróbica; de tal forma que la semiótica particular del grupo será también oprópicamente impuesta a la experiencia fisio-psicológica individual, respecto ideas compartidas morales que llegan a ser fisiológicamente relevantes para el individuo (bajo la amenaza de nuevo pero siempre de la expulsión potencial del individuo del grupo, ahora según una logica social propuesta secundaria, que es la de cualquier tradición cultural en su forma particular de rección fisiológica colectiva y a partir de su igualmente particular forma de mediatización—y por tanto definición—de la individualidad misma, que por razones anatómicas humanas obvias no puede distar en mucho de la forma y modo de cualquier otro.)

 

Secundaria porque la fisiología humana obligada semiótica y cultural se enfrenta de hecho y estructuralmente a la base misma opróbica individual, que acaba adueñándose de ella parcialmente, pero no del todo pues la racionalidad humana es a partir originalmente del punto híbrido zoomorfo que se vuelve racional, exactamente en la comprobación permanente de saberse uno físicamente, pero respecto aquellos otros de la experiencia física inmediata que el individuo percibe como físicamente extraños a sí mismo, aunque en todo otro sentido (respecto la pertenencia, y en la propia identidad cultural compartida) sí que se integra; pero no en lo corporal, evidentemente.

 

Y la base biológica zoomorfa y opróbica del individuo-también por razones evidentes-no se va realmente a ninguna parte, nunca; puede quedarse a la merced de otras semióticas nuevas o totalmente diferentes y ajenas, que con el tiempo también se hacen fisiológicamente relevantes y por fuerza, debido al desplazamiento físico del individuo extranjero que por razones siempre imperiosas ha de incorporase a otros grupos humanos diferentes. Pero el mecanismo base de la racionalidad humana, en su fondo subconsciente y siempre subcultural, finalmente, es en origen irracional y que solo respecto a un grupo al que haya de integrase el individuo, se produce una racionalización—también de base moral propia—de individualidad a partir de la necesidad de un pertenecer siempre imposible del todo, que es la puerta de acceso mismo al ser individualmente respecto siempre del grupo; y es, por implicación en verdad estructural, una tensión permanente fisiológica-racional por ser perteneciendo, pero en la obligación simultánea de acarrear con lo que no puede pertenecer nunca, que es el ser fisiológico primario y físico.

 

Por otra parte, la semiótica histórica más elevada o que se estuviera empezando digamos a remontar y alzarse, depende crucialmente del lenguaje humano, y sobre todo el lenguaje escrito; lo cual sugiere que la historia humana en su grueso temporal de, pongamos unos 200 mil años, ha tenido lugar sobre todo extramuros del lenguaje en sí, pues consideramos que el lenguaje escrito no tuvo lugar hasta hace 5 mil años solamente; y que sin la agricultura que se suele fechar en solo 10 mil años atrás, es ciertamente inconcebible que hubiera desarrollo lingüístico más que rudimentario; o lo que es lo mismo, que la experiencia cada vez más sedentaria obligó a la creación físiorracional humana del lenguaje como necesidad en realidad semiótica respecto al problema de una fisiología ya inmovilizada, y el problema de orden social que significaba ante sobre todo la necesidad de autoexplicarse a ellos mismos; y para ello crearon dioses, como otra forma parecida de imposición físiorracional una vez más, pero solo narrativamente posible dentro ya del lenguaje que solemos confundir con el origen del hombre, según muchas tradiciones que postulan más o menos esto de que en el principio fue el verbo, que es cierto en un sentido antropológico estructural sedentario, pero en ningún case respecto a la creación biológica real de nada.

 

Que hubo antes muchos milenios anteriores de no verbo en absoluto, pero sí de vida crucialmente significativa al menos como antecedente y evolución posible de lo que después vendría.

 

Y con el lenguaje tiene lugar históricamente un verdadero despegue semiótico como espacio técnicamente necesario de expansión humana posible y siempre frente al problema que acarrea la misma agricultura, que es a saber, el desfase evolutivo de una fisiología humana para entonces ya fija NO SEDENTARIA, empero dentro de contextos cada vez más sedentarios e inmovilizados; contextos ya de por sí lo suficientemente cívicos como para resultar blindados ya para siempre respecto la fuerza de selección natural humana, que quiere decir que tampoco cabía esperarse que la biología humana se hubiera adaptado al contexto sedentario y agrícola puesto que el mismo motor de la evolución de la especie quedó de repente imposibilitado.

 

Y necesariamente la propuesta semiótica de un grupo ha de ser igualmente una propuesta fisiológica y respecto al problema base y subyacente, entre una naturaleza física y fisiológica humana no apta para los contextos agrícolas, y que por la misma razón técnica no puede ya evolucionar.

 

De manera que las tradiciones culturales particulares acaban siendo propuestas semióticas a partir de una experiencia colectiva geográficamente definido, y siempre hacia una régimen fisiológico simplemente civil (que no quiere decir del todo pacífico), y al menos respecto del grupo inmediato propio; y la violencia que se logra erradicar internamente (mediante cualquier lógica rectora y normalmente respecto a un plano cósmico superior) sí cabe ejercerla exteriormente y de cara a otros grupos humanos diferentes, que por circunstancias técnicas de nuevo a modo de una necesidad de desahogo estructural (y puesto que la fisiología real humana es en verdad óptima para el ejercicio de la violencia) suele históricamente llevarse a cabo con la mayor furia y saña, hacia lo ajeno y culturalmente extranjero, como deleite fisiológico y desinhibido, libre por fin y al menos pasajeramente del contexto opróbico del grupo propio.

 

Y el modo de implantación fisiológica de tal propuesta semiótica cultural está, una vez más, en la biología opróbica individual, que condiciona el pertenecer al grupo en la misma calidad de obligación fisiológica respecto de aquellos entidades conceptuales y semióticas que el grupo en sí es y que el pertenecer individual no tiene más remedio que arrogarse igualmente para sí; que si no, no se es individualmente del grupo y por tanto expuesto naturalmente a la ira del grupo y su expulsión del mismo, en caso de que el individuo transgresor no sea físicamente aniquilado.

 

Con esto no quiere decir que el individuo llegue realmente a sopesar sus posibles opciones, o al menos no inicialmente. Pues que el pertenecer antropológico de la individualidad es la mismísima definición de individualidad al dictado en verdad del grupo sobre lo individual; y esto el yo no puede percibirlo como opcional, sino que acaba siendo su misma sustancia personal y fisiológica, aunque la base moral humana en verdad es a partir de la corporeidad propia e individual (dado que la experiencia física no deja nunca de ser singular), con lo cual hay que postular la individualidad como verdadera piedra angular incluso de una racionalidad colectiva y solo culturalmente postulada, lo que convierte el individuo más bien en un problema frente a lo estructural antropológico del grupo; problema que las antropologías históricas resuelven (aunque sin resolver nunca, como más bien una tensión permanente) fijando crípticamente al centro de cualquier experiencia cultural de fisiología finalmente secundaria, la fuerza corporalmente moral de yo;

 

Crípticamente pues porque toda lógica cultural narrativamente tiende hacia la canalización, si no sojuzgamiento, de las fuerza primarias del individuo en pos de la posibilidad misma de lo social; pero al mismo tiempo queda siempre corto en este mismo empeño, y hasta el extremo de permanecer en silencio en cuanto a la muy legitima enjundia individual y respecto de la cual-siempre guardando un mínimo de razonable decoro-no tiene en verdad casi nunca mucho que decir. Y como originalmente los individuos más tercamente resistentes en su propia individualidad, hacen finalmente grupos más fuertes-con probabilidades más serias de supervivencia-el mecanismo cultural opróbico de los grupos humanos muy lógicamente jamás ha querido nunca ni deshacerse de la individualidad ni siquiera seriamente perturbarla, sino todo lo contrario que es el refuerzo de la misma,

 

Aunque abiertamente no puede la lógica cultural defender narrativamente este propósito, siendo lo suyo necesaria e inicialmente una lógica de prohibición, puesto que depende la cultura crípticamente y para su propio ejercicio fáctico, del desafío que toda individualidad intrínsecamente representa:

 

Porque lo estructural antropológico y cultural es en repuesta a y contestando el desafío individual, como lo es toda su propuesta semiótica, finalmente fisiológica en respuesta al perenne desafío que es el individuo que es ni más ni menos la propia fuerza grupal-estructural, a través del tiempo y siempre renovada de generación en generación.

 

Que es aquello que naturalmente da lugar a una evolución social que es el permanecer cultural a través del cambio y dado que la fisiología humana es siempre la misma, siempre más de lo mismo e idéntico—pero histórica, cultural y contextualmente diferente.

 

Resulta de apremio pues el desmenuzar la relación real entre estas dos zonas-o cameras bimembres-del hecho cultural humano y antropológico respecto de un proceso paradójico de sojuzgamiento del individuo por una parte al grupo, mientras crípticamente es la individualidad que queda al centro real y estructural de edificio antropológico; que es la individualidad secretamente enaltecida como máximo valor estructural, finalmente, y en contradicción evidente con las lógicas narrativas culturales de la superficie racional y colectiva, e incluso cuando la lógica cultural en verdad bastante falsamente propone ella misma la glorificación oficial del individualismo, cuando estructuralmente el hecho antropológico siempre e universalmente prioriza al grupo siempre por encima del individuo, de tal forma y en tal extremo que es ciertamente el individuo que pende de-y es social y semióticamente producido por-el grupo, y no al revés.

 

Y puesto que la posibilidad misma del espacio social resulta fundada en un sentido y mecanismo practico de definición extrínseca-semiótica del individuo (mediante el oprobio biológico y su geometría físio-social; esto es, entre la realidad corporal individual, la presencia de los otros, y respecto las ideas que ellos comparten y esencialmente son) la misma estabilidad de lo colectivo está precisamente-paradójicamente-en el valor real, siempre renovada de la violencia moral del individuo corpóreo; como máximo guardián último de la fuerza vital cultural (y crucialmente estructural) que por si mismo no puede vigorizarse si no es mediante el desafío que le trae en su mismísimas narices como si dijéramos, el individuo.

 

Porque el individuo—como los niños también—da mucha vida crucialmente para la otra parte y actor cultural que es esta nebulosa e incorpórea fuerza salvaje de lo estructural, intensamente aterrorizado y que, por lo tanto, se ensaña en su furiosa voluntad de prohibición, dominio y sojuzgamiento de todo aquello que considera una amenaza para sí.

 

Y particularmente (con especial ahínco furioso) respecto a lo corporal y físico, aquello que precisamente no es, o solo de forma remota y semióticamente mediatizada, como única forma que lo físico, carnal le es finalmente tolerable.

 

______________________

Y se produce una divinización de la naturaleza humana, culturalmente ofrecida al sacrificio semiótico como proposición del mal que es la parte vital y demoniaca de nuestra naturaleza crucialmente física (respecto al menos el cristianismo y su base judaica; o asimismo dentro de la cultura griega clásica, bajo otros avatares y dentro de otras dicotomías); pero como es tal su enjundia viviente, lo estructural no puede permitirse ignorar ni subestimarlo-y lo pone en su mismísimo centro, alzándolo en lo alto, enmascarado bajo distintos avatares semióticos del bien y del mal; del dios y diablo cristianos, como finalmente uno y lo mismo, indistintamente respecto de la fuente antropológicamente perenne de todo, que es el problema técnico permanente de lo experiencia física individual, pero respecto del grupo humano, y entre la multitud cultural.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7) Geometric Opprobrium Games

http://www.caffereggio.net/2016/08/09/populistas-incorrectos-de-ricardo-dudda-en-el-pais/

Una característica fundamental del populismo es el rechazo a la corrección política. De Donald Trump a Marine Le Pen o Nigel Farage, los líderes populistas utilizan un lenguaje que busca romper los tabúes, que dice las cosas “como son” y utiliza significantes vacíos como el “sentido común”. La incorrección política sirve al populista para justificar su retórica divisiva y polarizadora: Donald Trump nunca aceptaría que sus discursos son racistas, para él son solo políticamente incorrectos. Sus seguidores aprecian su autenticidad, su aparente valentía a la hora de decir lo que, según ellos, todos piensan pero no se atreven a decir. Creen que hay una dictadura del “buenismo” y el pensamiento bienintencionado que les impide decir lo que consideran verdad, y que pone en peligro sus libertades.

 

Tabúes del grupo y su propuesta de incorrección política bienpensante

 

Retórica divisiva, polarizadora del populista

 

Gancho político propio en el físiorrechazo opróbico de individualidad antropológico

 

Es una preocupación muy estadounidense, y forma parte de una cultura muy arraigada de la libertad de expresión.[Mecánica cultural y formalista; como formalismo y cliché físio-semiotico cultural y antropológico] Muchos ciudadanos de Estados Unidos sienten que no solo les han arrebatado el país y frustrado sus esperanzas, sino que también las élites les han impedido quejarse de ello. Su rechazo a la corrección política es un rechazo al lenguaje que utilizan las élites para ocultar la verdad, es una manera simbólica de luchar contra el establishment. Los votantes de Trump ven su retórica incendiaria más como una expresión de integridad y sinceridad, y un rechazo al lenguaje mojigato y excesivamente calculado de los políticos de carrera, que como una muestra de racismo, machismo y mala educación. También sirve a Trump para protegerse de sus críticos. No es posible realizar una rendición de cuentas, porque es todo superficie y discurso: lo importante de Trump no es lo que dice, sino su show políticamente incorrecto. En la era de la política posfactual, en la que Trump es el rey, lo verdaderamente importante es la apariencia de autenticidad. Ninguno de sus votantes cree que vaya a construir un muro con México; les basta solo con que se atreva a proponerlo.

 

Tras las críticas a la corrección política hay parte de razón. Aunque es una manera bienintencionada de determinar las reglas de un debate civilizado, y suele ser una defensa de la integración y el respeto de las minorías, sus excesos han puesto en peligro en ocasiones la libertad de expresión: en las universidades estadounidenses, muchos estudiantes han censurado o intentado censurar opiniones que consideran ofensivas. A veces tiene como consecuencia justo lo que busca cambiar: en nombre de las minorías y la corrección política, muchos caen en una actitud paternalista que promueve la intolerancia y desprecia el pluralismo.

…

La derecha ha sido la principal preocupada por la corrección política, que considera característica de una izquierda mojigata y acomplejada. Pero la incorrección política es en esencia transversal y populista. Es, en cierto modo, una negación de la política, una defensa falaz de una verdad previa a la política institucional. El populista incorrecto no busca solo rescatar a las personas del establishment, sino también recuperar el lenguaje.

 

Aunque los líderes de Podemos utilizan la corrección política como una manera de crear hegemonía y no perder votos de sectores estratégicos, también buscan romper tabúes y cuestionan la “corrección política” o hegemonía cultural del sistema. Errejón afirmó en una entrevista que hay puntos en común entre el patriotismo del Frente Nacional y el de Podemos, y que al decir esto estaba siendo políticamente incorrecto. Quiere “construir pueblo mediante la batalla cultural” y convertir Podemos en un “partido-movimiento” de corte nacional-popular.

 

En un discurso en el Congreso en la pasada legislatura, Pablo Iglesias declaró que “decir la verdad, y tener principios, se ha vuelto algo extraño”, y se ofreció como la alternativa “decente” que no tiene miedo a decir la verdad. Pareció sugerir que, hasta la llegada de Podemos al Parlamento, nadie se había atrevido a decir lo que realmente había que decir. Es una defensa de una verdad “popular”, de sentido común (que es una característica de la incorrección política), propiedad del pueblo antes de que la política se la robara, y que es necesario rescatar. Pero, como se ha visto en la campaña del Brexit y en la de Trump, para recuperar la verdad que han ocultado los poderosos, el populista incorrecto acaba siempre usando la mentira.

Ricardo Dudda es periodista y miembro de la redacción de Letras Libres.

 

________________________________

Movimiento más bien antropológico respecto la ambivalencia base de individualidad grupal y antropológico-estructural, y al que se le puede atraer provocando (que es finalmente un vigorizar) precisamente sobre el punto del agobio estructural-grupal que solo se alivia natural y antropológicamente en el rechazo físiorracional del mismo (que es el modo antropológico de la verdadera individualidad tonificante y finalmente corporal)—y esto políticamente en torno a un modelo coreografiado físio-semiótico y patrón de individualidad a seguir, que es el líder—presidente o Fuhrer—y respecto finalmente sus tabúes propuestos propios que es finalmente la suplantación de una semiótica anterior por una nueva de dominio personal, del partido—o grupo y estamento oscuro de presión—como nuevo paradigma (en verdad físio-antropológico) de un nuevo orden político, semiótico y finalmente colectivamente fisiológico, ciertamente como remedo estructural mayor y antropológico, sin embargo al servicio de unos fines poco circunspectos y finalmente provincianos, dado que su propio ímpetu de exclusivamente dominio geométrico y situacional, no está ni interesado ni capacitado para una posible gestión sistémica-estructural mayor respecto el espacio humano antropológico en sí.

 

El dominio político así entendido es y se propone ser en realidad un caloroso y paternal abrazo antropológico de la individualidad afligida físio-antropológica humana y estructural; pero ruin ciertamente en lo no confesado y respecto las intenciones iniciales siempre vacíos y solo situacionales, de forcejeo y lucha ocultos respecto al espacio físio-psicológico de individualidad antropológica, debajo de la superficie social racional y coherente, lejos siempre de la luz diurna.

 

El Donald es una mierda, pero tonifica

-Falaz (y verdaderamente avieso) porque el contenido conceptual (más bien poco) está siempre al servicio de uno fines finalmente siempre fisiológicos, nada más.

 

-Los procesos históricos llamados así populistas (pero que en realidad son de una propuesta manipulación fisiologica-psicologica y físio-semiótica) parecen adquirir una especial carácter virulento a partir especialmente de la prensa escrita y el telégrafo; la posibilidad técnica de fotografías impresas en los periódicos; y el cine y la radio que arraigan social y físiopsicologicamente al mismo tiempo, más o menos, y durante las mismas décadas del siglo XX (los años veinte y treinta); hasta tal punto que sería lícito afirmar que el fenómeno de Adolph Hitler no hubiera sido posible de la misma forma ni en la misma rapidez y virulencia sin esto que era un nuevo mecanismo de franqueo de la mente (y de la misma individualidad estructural y antropológica) del ser humano; que efectivamente actúa como fuerza catalizadora sobre los elementos del sustrato cultural alemán y respecto de una noción grupal orgánica y organicista especifica.

 

Exiled Man Anthropology

Or

Structurally Displaced Individuality of Anthropology

That, in the exclusively bodily, thus accounts for the moral patrimony of really indiviudality itself—as the only way to begin to know the moral that is in your own physical, bodily vulnerablity; and biological opprobrium is about moral threat that is ultimatly physiologically experienced as physical, bodily threat; but structurally, it is the physical which human groups can never actually asimílate that effectively leaves the individual permanently out in the cold, so to speak, and that is in fact the very realm of moral possibility, in regards really to the anthropological itself.

 

And so the general and broadly stated rule of thumb is human groups have difficulty with morality because only individuals live in bodies; groups are a physiologically semiotic reality, but not physical. But groups can, of course, control the physical circumstances of bodily trangressors…

 

(Don’t forget that!)

 

 

 

8) Two Families of Objects (From Umberto Eco Travels in Hyperreality, 1990)

[FINAL TWO PARAGRAPHS]…The objects are of two types. The first are the “beautiful” objects, desirable, fairly accesible. They include easy chairs, lamps, sausages, liquors, motorboats, swimming pools. The visitor loves them and would like to own them. He cannot perhaps buy a motorboat but he can think of the remote possibility—one day, who knows?—of making such a purchase. But there is one thing he doesn’t desire: to accumulate objects of a single type. He may want an ashtray, but not a hundred ashtrays; a rubber boat, but not a thousand rubber boats. So his desire is keen but not frantic; it can be postponed, but its difficulty never creates the drama of impossibility. When you think about it, these “beautiful” objects are all consumer goods.

 

Then there are the others. They are “ugly”, because they are cranes, cement mixers, lathes, hods, excavators, hydraulic presses (actually, they are very beautiful, more beautiful than the first, but the visitor doesn’t know this). Since they are ugly and cumbersome, they are undesirable, also because they seem strangely defunctionalized, with their wheels spinning pointlessly, their blades striking the air without slicing anything…They are inaccessible, but the visitor doesn’t care. He knows that even if he could buy a machine tool, it would be of no use to him. Because these objects, unlike the others, function only if they are accumulable. A thousand ashtrays are useless, but a thousand machine tools make big industry. At the end of his rounds, the ordinary visitor believes he has chosen. He desires beautiful objects, accessible, and not accumulable, and rejects those that are ugly and accumulable (but inaccessible). In reality, he has not chosen; he has only accepted his role as consumer of consumer goods since he cannot be a proprietor of means of production. But he is content. Tomorrow he will work harder in order to be able to buy, one day, an easy chair and a refrigerator. He will work at the lathe, which is not his because (the fair has told him) he doesn’t want it. (1970)

 

Implict: Are two different levels of logic where one is subordinated to and contained by the other; thus a natural border and barrier arises in which the logic of the higher, containing level cannot be completely frank and forthcoming with regards to the greater part of the individuals who make up the lower level (although individuals who understand and work in higher logic also belong in also their own physiology to the lower). And thus a utilitarian relationship is formed between a natural anthropological illusion in which individuals live, that becomes a physiological freedom of a discerning, fundamentally hedonist and comfort-seeking self; while the logic and designs of the higher, structural level are (initially) conceptual and so corporeally remote—as specifically a force of temporal imposition through time, from initial investment, strategically towards ultimately a tacit put permanent structural control of the very contexts in which the greater breadth and with of collective social experience takes place physio-semiotically through time; that is thus a form finally of semiotic-controlled, semiotic-limited and thus defined, physiological possibility of the human collective—that becomes quite directly a collective and culturally physiological medium as object of higher-tiered, technical design and imposition.

 

Such a situation therefore is optimal also for other cryptic cultural forces which have of course most accidently ended up adopting the very mode of anthropological mechanisms of individual physiological subjugation and definition towards group cohesion, order and stability; accidently because human groups do in fact survive as groups in the very physiological engagement and invigoration of individuals—and this not only in regards to a long term financial reassurance for investors and their political structures, but rather in and because of the very physiological nature of human experience as of ever, universally and in all geographic points and historical moments;

 

Accidentally especially because such a self-serving mode of relating utilitarianly to the rest of society would be, even for those individuals at the highest pinnacle of structural understanding and implementation, morally intolerable if forced in its true rational dimensions on the conscience of individuals.

 

Certainly because the real union between both levels is in fact the physiological itself, that thus turns the labor of structurally technical consideration, implementation and control potentially also into a process of physiological engagement and invigoration for those individuals and given that even the conceptually rational is of course simply another realm of human physiology—as intellectual comprehension in some sense as just another form of perception and human physiologically rational imposition;

 

Because most necessarily—perhaps fatally—do human beings need to live physiologically invigorated existences, at all costs and in regards to all agrarian, sedentary cultural experience; and so it is that man’s achieved—but primary—cognizance allowed him to compensate in the semiotic for what he could not do physically simply because the semiotic and representational is physiological—is physiologically real and despite all physical limitation and impossibility.

 

And so rationally unawares to mankind—though not aesthetically—it becomes the physiological that is our perpetual armor and protecting bulwark against the rational itself:

 

And this in regards as well to culturally sturctural adminstrators and decision makers, whom we must necessarily suppose and attribute a labor of at least minimally technical, rationl nature…

 

But a truly rational existence is true grit if it is to be part of social experience.

 

(Is damn near impossible, in fact!)

 

And so the illusory cultural phantom, actually becomes the rational, and not the permanent steadfast will to life of the human physiological and corporeal individual.

 

 

 

 INDEX

(1)(DEFFINITIVE) INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON THE PHYSIO-TOTEMIC

(2)Opprobrium

(3) The Selves of Anthropology

(4) Life During War Time (1979)

(5) Art/Reality/Physio-Totemic Representation

(6) The Physio-Totemic and its Zoomorphic—Rational Continuum

(7) Semiotic Constitution of Individual Belonging

 

 

 

(1)(DEFFINITIVE) INTRODUCTORY NOTES ON THE PHYSIO-TOTEMIC

 

1)Physiolgy

-Is need

-Response to need is entity definition

-Attainment of comfort (‘satisfaction’) is power

 

[Definition and power to define (as self-imposition) is a form of physiological comfort]

 

2)Need

Definition

Power = comfort physiology

 

[Elevated to anthropological mechanics of the physiologically moral self (socially dependent, so incipiently semiotic and therefore necessarily outside the self—and rational—in the sense of self VERSUS the others—IS THUS A MECHANICS OF OPPROBRIUM]

 

Rationality is thus in the others and regarding this-that-I-am-in-my-bodily being (that is not them!) Thus the culturally-posited rational self is a socially-controlled self through opprobrium and its physiology of moral threat; but so is the self also necessarily a semiotic self, extrinsically defined in the rational posits of the social itself, which similarly become so important to the individual’s motivation also through opprobrium and towards an individual belonging thus in the semiotic-conceptual notions of the others, and that to at least a minimum extent she must make her own, as well. Thus is the social clearly a semiotic social foremost and above all in the mind of the individual; and this physiologically-cognitive, mental space becomes a physiologically-cognitive process of the mind (the physiologically-totemic) that is effectively the realm of union of the original opprobrium-rational self and the semiotic-rational and culturally-posited. And so the more semiotic substance of the social and culturally-posited rational (because it is itself a structure of opprobrium-enforced ideas and rational tenets that are physiologically binding for the individual), points clearly and even in this initial outline, to the problem of physiological drift in the semiotic and culturally-posited away from original, physiologically immediate and bodily experience of the self—that is also a bodily rational and bodily moral experiencing of—originally and always—the human group itself from the standpoint of singular, bodily individuality in-this-that-I-am-that-is-not-them; and so it is not only because of technology historically that could explain the circumstances and causes of Spengler’s Conundrum, but rather in the semiotic itself as of sedentary experience and especially agriculture, that is a structural physiological drift of cultural, anthropological space itself owing to the very much natural process in human history of physio-rational semiotic expansion towards the very possibility of socially complex—but stable—human groups and societies (as of the problem of the force of physiological immobilization agrarian-based, sedentary anthropology represents and to which human history has effectively been a response, ever since and universally.)

 

Because Spengler’s Conundrum is also to a great extent Freud’s Dilemma in Civilization and its Discontents (1930)

[27jun16]

 

 

(2)Opprobrium

Physiologically moral self (“in the others”)

That is incipiently semiotic (“in the others”)

And so is rationally aware of self (“in and because of the others”)

 

 

 

 

(3) The Selves of Anthropology

 

[Opprobrium Self]

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Anthropological Self]

.

.

.

.

.

[Physio-Totemic Self]                                                  [Semiotic Self]

 

 

 

 

REPRESENTATION (In the force over the individual of the physiological)

Follows rules and logic intrinsically coherent to itself; thus cannot be approached according to other logics, except in regards to a contrast with that which it is not (but that nevertheless is a further insight towards defining what it is). In regards to a physiology of representation, it is of course still physiology; but that requires thus a certain suspension of belief in terms of broader semiotic vantage points physiological response cannot entirely heed. The nature of this suspension of belief—also coincidental with what is an actual process of the structurally anthropological itself—is not always moral decision of discerning will towards a tacit covenant with the artistic; but rather because of in fact the force of the physiological one does not really accept at all (such is its power to envelope human, physiologically sensorial, physiologically conceptual perception and thus the individual’s own physiological experience); and so it is only the culturally-posited rational that perhaps situates ultimate significance of the artistic, and of the general sensorial-perceived in its entirety. But suspension of belief of a culturally-posited rationality would not seem quite accurate: acceptance of the physiological is not really possible (just as its rejection neither is); the physiological simply is, and so the individual’s reaction and physio-totemic positing of self in regards to it, becomes, of course, a physiology and physiological paradigm in itself. On the other hand, the semiotic and what the physiological might actually mean, is another and separate matter altogether.

___________________________

Anthropology itself is thus also a suspension of belief (of the rational) in favor of the physiological. And suspension could also be understood as a curtailing, limiting and so definition of the rational itself, as once again working pretext to and for the physiological, and the functional, systemic stability of social experience it finally becomes. The contradiction arises, however, of the semiotic force of culture against primary physiology and physiological disturbance generally, that is really a positing of a secondary and culturally-posited physiology, through, of course, the semiotic (as in fact the culturally-posited rational itself) FURTHER INFERENCES physiology is invariably always defined by the ideas usually imposed on people, in regards to the anthropologically structural or separate and sub-physical realms of particular group experience and even just circumstances; and it is thus the conceptual in sundry forms of essentially imposition (through different forms of social agency, overt and covert) that determines real physiological paradigms. And so impose the conceptual and the body follows, in one form or another, as whole-hearted compliance on the part of individuals or out and out defiance and rejection—according to the enveloping reality of physio-totemic mental process of the mind (as a result of physio-conceptual perception and the individual’s subsequent moral, opprobrium-based, physio-totemic positioning and definition of self in the mind and prior to the acts of individual will, but that is in itself most intensely physiological, physiologically-rational experience and before even a word is spoken, a stone thrown or a US dollar spent.

 

 

 

(4) Life During War Time (1979)

Practical Understanding of the Physio-Totemic Practically Understood (but not completely):

An externally controlled (manipulated) physio-totemic space of the mind and physiologically cognitive process—and not just through physio-sensorial perception, but rather directly through in fact the imagery of the individual’s mind; thus not only reading the mind, but putting images into it is—or would be—the real power to manipulate (directly and with sibylline command over) a person’s actual social and publically understood behavior; that is so secretive because it crucially maintains a sense of self in the individual that is the very physio-totemic and mental stimulation of the individual’s cognitive physiology towards decisive, moral self-affirmation and definition, as natural forerunner to the individual’s acts and personal behavior.

 

Mental images are actually nothing in themselves, except that in the individual’s cognitive contemplation of them-in the mind’s eye-they ultimately have a direct connection to the corporally physiological (and I assume the individual’s nervous systems); clearly once again it is a biology of opprobrium at work in the individual’s very perception of mental images, that is ultimately fear-based in regards to this zoomorphic and primeval physio-genetic memory of the individual’s dismemberment of her own body by a very angry human group she somehow very much displeased (probably 10 of thousands of Earth-years before agriculture itself); and that is to this day still the base of the universal human and anthropological self as of the individual’s bodily vulnerability to the numerical superiority of the group.

 

And thus the nature of the self is implicitly a rational, moral self in regards to the practicality of belonging to the group (although the real force of opprobrium is sub-conscious and irrational in origin-because it is biological, that is, of genetic origin). The physio-cognitive process of the mind and its images is thus no different in regards to the individual’s contemplation than if one were visually before any pictorial scene of any painting, film—or even, of course, just optical perception itself in regards to other physically immediate human beings (as images, but not in regards to physiologically immediate, linguistic interaction!):

 

In all cases opprobrium is the internal force of the permanent need of the individual to define one’s self with regards to perception itself; because that primeval opprobrium self, subjacent always to the whole of the culturally rational, deep at the core of the possibility of you, does not want to be the pre-agrarian group’s dinner that night, or lunch tomorrow; or some human toy as object and collective whipping post for the angst and fury of a group of also terrified human beings; so you do not want to be, either!

 

And personal definition starts thus in the mind itself as of especially visual perception, that is the individual’s necessarily moral positioning in regards to what the mind is processing.

 

So what then is the difference between reality and representation; the real as visually perceived by the individual and art (or simply entertainment as representation)?

 

Because human perception and the force of opprobrium do not distinguish between one and the other; and the phsyio-totemic likewise makes no initial difference between either. And it is only the culturally-posited rational and semiotic the allows you to know the difference.

 

Clearly then, the possibilities of hiding extra-anthropological technology in the human physiological and physiologically rational itself, are more than ample! [14jun16]

 

 

(5)

ART (Representation)

REALITY (Sensory/Conceptual Perception of it)

THE PHYSIO-TOTEMIC (As Unifier)

 

That is to say, there is no initially technical difference between representation and reality, from the standpoint of human perception; and mental process is a form of representation even in regards to the perception of reality, anyway. And both art and perceived reality are physiologically real and binding for the individual.

 

Representation [Versus] Reality—Depends on the culturally-posited rational and semiotic. Because everything is representation, initially as of perception and in the mind’s eye.

 

Key is physiological connection of mental imagery, in all cases; connection of mental imagery to individual’s physiology and the physiologically rational and cognitive. And of course opprobrium is also inevitably a factor, that turns physio-cognitve process—in all cases—into a physiologically totemic context in which the individual positions herself in a personal, but also opprobrium-based, moral sense (in all cases, as part of human conscience and central to the notion of self); as a singularly universal totemic space of the opprobrium self, in regards to and before the physiologically bound experiencing of mental imagery.

 

Although the self is also rational will to overcome, in regards also to the phsyio-cognitively totemic. And thus a big part of culture stability is in fact refuge from the physio-totemic and rational in the physiological itself; that is underlying and imperious cause for the need anthropologically for physiological invigoration so that the physiological regime of the culturally semiotic is in fact tolerable, and crucially in regards to the possibility itself of anthropological stability.

 

Importance of physical, physiologically immediate experience: As real, bodily domain of individuality, and to some extent outside the culturally-posited rational and anthropological; because the anthropologically structural is fiercely about the body in the culturally semiotic; and the semiotic is foundationally about collective, physiological control and order that thus becomes above all a structural defining of the collectively physiological.

 

Thus the culturally-posited rational is effectively purpose-based, as in fact a mechanism that could be understood as really a strategy towards collectively physiological stability, that posits finally a mode of individuality in only this physiological sense in regards to ideas that necessarily are to weigh on the individual’s conduct and possibility of restraint to avoid and diffuse the exercising of especially physical violence against others; but never are we to understand extended human group structure of civilization itself as some kind of concentration camp experience—the system would not obviously be viable if that were the case-and individuality in only its systemically functional, structurally technical essence must then be adorned and dressed to a full vital elegance of a culturally-posited moral freedom, when what is really at stake is simply the problem of social and group, structural and systemic buoyancy of the physiological.

 

And it is, of course, the semiotic over the physiological that is cultural craftsman of what is a proposed, secondary paradigm, finally, of human physiology held to and by the individual’s own biological force of opprobrium; because as an individual if the group’s ideas, traditions (semiotics) are not at least to some extent physiologically relevant and binding for you, you will have to find another group to belong to.

 

Secondary because a physiology of Cain is only acceptable as narrative hero (or anti-hero)—that is to say, in the semiotic itself; but not in and among the human fold as the problem violence becomes in regards to cultural embrace itself and its invigorated complacency of the physiological (which is the whole point of human groups and their anthropologies, anyway!)

 

And so the structural fall guy then becomes the deeper aspects of physical and physiological experience itself, and that in only certain fixed modes of social comprehensibility (meaning, opprobrium-based) are tolerated.

 

Because these deeper aspects of physical and physiological experience are in fact a structural problem, undeniably; but so is a radicalization of the force of the culturally structural itself, that simply follows the power of opprobrium over and through individuals into the creation of contexts in which the fraudulent aspect of individuality in itself (as a natural and necessary component of civilization) is brutally distorted—even preyed upon and utilized—rapidly affecting human personality itself, to the point of imposing ultimately a structural form of individuality that can no longer oppose in its own force of entity and merit, the cultural and anthropologically structural.

 

Because in wholesomely buoyant anthropologies (loosely following Spengler), it is the force of individuality itself that is the true cryptic keel of anthropological stability, in the challenge to the structurally systemic only individuality can provide;

 

And a challenged culture is a living culture, that must once again and permanently affirm itself through its very self-exercise; and that inevitably requires not only force of logical coercion (necessarily to some extent), but logically also compromise, adaptation and gradual evolution, finally.

 

And so historically the structural fall guy becomes the phantom side of the culturally structural, as a sub-cultural frustration and turmoil for individuals who are structurally taken further and further away from their deeper physiological and physical selves, under the boot and whip of opprobrium and the culturally-posited rational and semiotic, human biology of opprobrium itself blindly propels,

 

In only a physiology, ultimately, that knows not what it is, finally and almost at all, most crucially because it takes place more in the semiotic than in actual physical reality.

 

But, of course, you are not likely to understand this if only civilization is what you know; because you are not physiologically akin to the reasons why civilization is the way it is. And only intellectually do you perhaps understand surely its value, but never have you experienced the physiological justification of the why of civilization.

 

 

 

_____________________

Physiologically Binding: subject to the force of opprobrium [13jun16]

 

 

 

(6) The Physio-Totemic and its Zoomorphic—Rational Continuum

Becomes thus the point of union between the Opprobrium-self and the Semiotic Self; is thus a transversal and pillar of the Anthropological Self of Human Groups, from the zoomorphic social (opprobrium and the bodily rationality it produces in regards to and against the others), to the highest of the most refined semiotic-rational reasoning man is capable of.

 

And so at all levels of the Anthropological Group Self the physio-totemic remains of a permanent hybrid nature as effectively a continuum between zoomorphic, fear-based vulnerability to the others versus progressively higher forms of the semiotic and culturally rational:

 

Because underlying foundation of morality is probably originally our ability to begin to empathizes with the victimization we see in the social as of our own personal and very much culturally cryptic victimization in opprobrium that is perennially thus the origin of a human, working sense of justice and equanimity,

 

As of the group and in how the individual thus acquires a bodily and moral sense of self as the foundation of further social identity.

 

The core of individuality is thus inescapably moral in this sense as of a bodily individuality effectively at the mercy of the superior force of number of the group itself (but really in regards to the ideas, collective impulses and spirit that move them) and which culture, although it seeks to suppress the logical violence of individuality, also never really lets the individual forget.

 

Because culture is a functionally dynamic contradiction that cryptically depends in its systemic stability on exactly that which it seeks to suppress, curtail and channel in the individual-and exactly what culture’s decorum nature seeks to deny thus becomes its very impetus of real long term stability and survival.

 

And in this eminent contradiction is the flexibility of anthropological balance attained!

 

But in following Spengler it is of course to be noted that culture is not indestructible, and so can go too far in its force of rational decorum imposition-and that, as already has been discussed, is more physiologically-driven in itself than rationally conducted, where the semiotic ends up becoming only a pretext for the physiological itself; in regards however to a culturally-proposed, secondary physiology and the problem this becomes when the physiology of only the culturally-posited gets too far ahead of the deeper nature of physiological man as of the end of human evolution itself and the inexorable fixing of our permanent physio-social nature as of the historical appearance of agriculture proper.

 

(Any questions–Langley)

20JUN16

 

 

(7) SEMIOTIC CONSITUTION OF INDIVIDUAL BELONGING And so after agriculture, human groups become above all and first and foremost a semiotic constitution of individual belonging, that is at the same time necessarily and to some extent adversarial (given that each individual is also a different, singular body and its physiology); fictional is thus its primary quality in certainly a physical sense. Of human physio-rational invention could also be another way to describe the conceptual essence of cultural belonging, reinforced over the generations and through time, in regards to originally a specific, geographically defined, collective experiencing of the physiological. But the only way the semiotic becomes physiologically relevant to individuals is through a mechanism of opprobrium and the individual need to be one with and of the others. And that up to only a certain point, once again, because the culturally-posited rational and semiotic cannot always and completely tell you who you are—but you do know who you are not, and it is the physio-rational positioning of the self in the physiologically totemic and cognitive as physiological process of the mind where the anthropological self (as of agriculture or more sedentary-based existence) is to be found, and that the systemic viability of culture actually requires to in fact be systemically viable—that is, in the challenge of individual experience to it and culture’s opportunity to reinforce itself, and thereby come vigorously alive, once again.

 

Thus is physiologically immediate experience perhaps even more necessary, as of the circumstances of semiotic anthropological constitution; as in fact a form of respite and relief from the physio-totemic self. And undoubtedly is conversation itself the perennial cradle of the cultural, as physio-rational experiencing of the self physiologically outside of the physio-totemic, in face to face—or group—conversation; where the semiotic is still the semiotic, but that becomes secondary as in fact a physio-rational instrument of direct, inter-personal physiological exchange—that is thus a physical sense of self, held nevertheless, to the realities of another that becomes a form of suspension of the physio-totemic, when that conversation is freely spontaneous and like a whole nother world in regards to a sense of self one would almost seem to leave behind, briefly and in the heat of language as personal human exchange and expanse.

 

Because the physio-totemic is not really who you are, but is rather an anthropologically structural dictate of the semiotic, historically as of agriculture.

 

 

SEMIOITC IMPLIES PHYSIO-TOTEMIC IMPLIES OPPROBRIUM

As a physiologically rational and cognitive, mental realm of extremes; as effectively omnipotence and crushing self-abasement, given that there is actually no one up there with you to in some way rationally ground you to proper (or better) perspective. And in a world of physiologically relevant (so opprobrium-based) images and concepts, the physio-totemic self is like culture itself of a semiotic constitution of the mind, similarly held to idealizations; and in regards to those idealizations so does a physiology of the mind position itself as very much a physiologically mental consecration to those idealizations; but, of course, only in regards to a personal, internal physiological rationality that is effectively prevented from projecting itself, as long as it remains only a physiology of the mind and cognitive. The culturally external and real at least has the advantage for the self of physiologically real projection, whereas the exclusively physio-totemic does not. So in just physiologically configured human groups, that thus do not require of the semiotic the way sedentary, agricultural man does, the development of a physio-totemic element of human personality and self is not possible; the physio-totemic as the internal voice and perhaps conscience, would seem to be only necessitated by the semiotic itself, as the primary first step towards physiological projection (that only semioitc-based anthropology requires). Primitive man did not project his physiology-he was his physiology, though not entirely extent, of course, of the possibility of meaning.

 

 

 

 

Phyisio-totemic Inference:

And the self with regards to the semiotic thus positions herself internally as physiologically cognitive process of the mind—that is a moral positioning of self-definition through fear, moral threat (opprobrium) and physiological response to sensorial—and cognitive—perception, of in fact ideas and the semiotic itself; as a broadly understood realm of physiological moral dilemma of self internal to the individual, but that is the natural outlet and space for the corporal and logical self of opprobrium-based bodily vulnerability to the group, once again and as the birth point of at least the socially rational (outside of the psycho-affective sphere of family), although its force is permanently of the human biological and therefore of also permanent irrational origin and nature (despite one’s intellectual understanding of it.) But you and your body in regards to and versus the others is certainly a predicament and circumstance of very much rational self-awareness, indeed. Enter: calculation- discretion-manners-forms of deception, and tactics of social diplomacy; for how else can advantage be gained by the individual, before and potentially faced with the very numerical superiority of the group itself?

 

Real social (physical and physiological) interaction, is of course a different matter with the regards to the physio-totemic self; to the point that interpersonal, social exchange becomes in some ways relief from it and the rigors of the physiologically cognitive process of the mind that is permanently subject itself to the opprobrium force of moral threat; that because in the mind the world in its individually-conceived entirety is something of a personal matter until it can in fact be contrasted through the perception and physiological acceptance of others (even if disapprovingly), reality itself cannot really be said to begin except through others—and because your real, more wholesome self is actually in them, anyway. This at least anthropologically is the reason why you need and so have a self, to begin with (the self of non-sedentary groups is different, and not the self we understand as our own, after agriculture.)

 

 

 

14) De Los viudos (físio-totémicos) de Margaret Sullavan de Mario Benedetti

UNO DE LOS pocos nombres reales que aparecen en mis primeros cuentos [«Idilio», «Sábado de gloria»] es el de Margaret Sullavan. Y aparece por una razón sencilla. Es inevitable que en la adolescencia uno se enamore de una actriz, y ese enamoramiento suele ser definitorio y también formativo. Una actriz de cine no es exactamente una mujer; más bien es una imagen. Y a esa edad uno tiende, como primera tentativa, a enamorarse de imágenes de mujer antes que de mujeres de carne y hueso. Luego, cuando se va penetrando realmente en la vida, no hay mujer de celuloide —al fin de cuentas, sólo captable por la vista y el oído— capaz de competir con las mujeres reales, igualmente captables por ambos sentidos, pero que además pueden ser disfrutadas por el gusto, el olfato y el tacto.

Pero la actriz que por primera vez nos corta el aliento e invade nuestros insomnios, significa también nuestro primer ensayo de emoción, nuestro primer borrador de amor. Un borrador que años después pasaremos en limpio con alguna muchacha —o mujer— que seguramente poco o nada se asemejará a aquella imagen de inauguración, pero que en cambio tendrá la ventaja de sus manos tangibles con mensajes de vida, de sus labios besables sin más trámite, de sus ojos que no sólo sirvan para ser mirados sino también para mirarnos.

Sin embargo, el amor de celuloide es importante. Significa algo así como un preestreno. Frente a aquel rostro, a aquella sonrisa, a aquella mirada, a aquel ademán, tan reveladores, uno prueba sus fuerzas, hace la primera gimnasia de corazón, y algunas veces hasta escucha campanas. Y como,

después de todo, no se corre mayor riesgo [la imagen por lo general está remota, en un Hollywood o una Cinecitá inalcanzables], uno se deja soñar, desinhibido, resignado y veraz, aunque el fondo de tanta franqueza sea un amor de ficción.

Margaret Sullavan había sido eso para mí. Es claro que, cuando escribí los cuentos, ya no era por cierto un adolescente. Aunque todavía daban en los cines montevideanos alguna que otra película de su última época, y aunque por supuesto no me perdía ninguna, yo ya había pasado más de una vez en limpio aquel borrador de amor, y en consecuencia podía verlo con distancia y objetividad, pero también con una cálida nostalgia, con una alegre gratitud, como siempre se mira, a través del tiempo esmerilado, a la mujer que de alguna manera nos ha iniciado en el viaje amoroso.

…Nos dimos la mano y todo. Como dos deudos. Casi como hubiera podido sentirse James Stewart, pareja de Margaret en tantas películas.

Cuando salí en dirección al restorán italiano, yo también me froté los ojos, pero en mi estilo: no con la palma sino con los nudillos. En realidad, no conocía cuál podía ser el grado o la motivación del amargo estupor del boletero, irascible y cegato. Pero en mi caso sí que lo sabía: por primera vez en mi vida había perdido a un ser querido.

 

__________________

Parte inicial y final del cuento de Mario Benedetti Los viudos de Margaret Sullavan (1977)

INDEX

1)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition

2) A CULTURAL NOTION

3)COMMUNICATION WITHOUT LOGICAL PROPOSTIONS

4)Individuality as threat to ultimate group stability:

The Kenaima versus the Central Caribs

5) Anthropology’s Problem of The Bodily Self(2)

(6)Two-component and compartmentalized entities: how one side relates to the other and relationships of mutual inter-physiological dependence that arise.

(7)YUXTAPOSICION Y CAUSALIDAD (CRASO ERROR)

 

 

1)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition

-Human perception itself, especially visual

-Opprobrium

-The physio-totemic as process

-Language in its structural workings

-Existential-narrative belief as imposition over only partially understood and controllable reality.

-As human need to impose on reality (at least through physiologically rational conviction) what circumstances and perhaps the culturally-posited rational itself do not immediately reveal. Because if you cannot simply take for granted the culturally-posited rational, use personal, rationally-based conviction to make your own actions effectively possible; because you need auxiliary support of some form of at least incipient rationality and logic—when that rationality and logic is not simply anthropologically evident of itself.

-Through physio-rational imposition I effectively make myself bigger than the reality of limitation I live in and struggle against in my own physiological milieu and ken; this is of course generally only possible in—or supported by—the semiotic itself. And one of the reasons I need to make myself bigger than the limitation I live in and defines me after agriculture, is the force of physiological immobilization of the agrarian anthropological itself; and that because I am physiologically sentient and rationally aware—but cannot actually go anywhere because of the nature of sedentary existence—I need to make reality itself bigger than it is in just my perception of it.

ENTER THE DIVINE

As semiotic, physio-rational projection and elaboration, reinforced over the generations—but ntowards always collective and systemic physiological stability and invigoration (that because stable, effectively requires invigoration.)

WEIGHT LIFTING-OR PUMPING IRON(1977) & SHOOT TO THRILL(1981)

Physiological strife and invigoration of agrarian experience (in the semiotic) that goes physically nowhere; but that is, in its invigoration, a lifting of the weight of sedentary physiological experience (and given human physiology is not, in an evolutionary sense, really designed for—or suitable to—the permanently sedentary.) That becomes a lifting of the weight of waiting that is a good way to describe the experience and circumstances of human beings as of their own, underlying perception of existence, historically and after agriculture.

Or you can be an explorer (or more likely still, go to war!)

2) A CULTURAL NOTION

How to be physiologically rational in another language, and the attainment of competency of physio-rational, linguistic imposition.

-Language: A form of physio-rational invention and imposition, based on a limited set of rules the individual has at her physio-rational disposition; that is culturally reinforced as of is its physiological relevance for the individual through the opprobrium mechanism. And the linguistic opprobrium self becomes the poet in all of us as of an opprobrium-forced, linguistic competency of individuality; that nevertheless is also linguistically free to the degree language allows for and towards the individual’s own capacity of physio-linguistic imposition and invention.

_____________________

Notes

Rules and definition of language allow for the possibility of physiologically-rational, linguistic freedom towards self-imposition and affirmation…(otherwise language itself would have never become very popular.)

 

3)COMMUNICATION WITHOUT LOGICAL PROPOSITIONS

Decontextualization that stimulates target-beholder to physio-rationally impose semantic context on what is visually presented to perception; as a strategy that would seem to play on human tendency to impose on perception itself. But that is more specifically directed at the individual’s capacity to guess–or, really, formulate—meaning in regards to presented sensorial prompts that initially in and of themselves offer none; and over time, it becomes a semiotics in itself, in regards to a foundational set of basic references upon which new conceptualizations can be introduced, as once again and ultimately a physiological imposition over the individual towards in fact her own capacity to physio-rationally impose meaning on the sensorially perceived.

4)Individuality as threat to ultimate group stability:

The Kenaima versus the Central Caribs

Logic under the cover of the deceased who obviously cannot confirm or deny proposed, working logic and explanation the living in fact understand themselves through. And it is this impossibility of rationally knowing that allows group and cultural logic to operate, towards the effective logical sequencing of events of cause and effect; towards finally what is essentially a comfort in logic itself, in regards to a Big Systemic beyond anyone’s control—so the circumstances of human mortality are a little easier to bear in a logic-based understanding, and at least from a physiologically immediate cultural standpoint;

And logic-based it is, even though it is certainly NOT real –but the death of others in its contemplation by the individual is very much physiologically real and requires some form of human ability to control thus temper, and alleviate—and this crucially in a collective sense; otherwise the group would dissipate. The logic of the culturally-proposed rational is the instrument to such an effect.

And it would inexorably come into being through cultural tradition as of originally the human need to physio-rationally impose on reality itself; a need which is in fact permanently felt, permanently renewed as loss of those physiologically proximate.

So somebody posited that very logical imposition, because the original human, Carib group had to sine qua non, although any other logically sound explanation would have similarly worked.

But such a positing of the logically conceptual from the standpoint of human need, is only possible on to that which cannot be logically approached, neither confirmed nor –more importantly—contradicted; because in just this non-approachable quality is its supreme value, in the very creation of a context of collective physiological stability protected from further physiologically rational imposition by other individuals (that is people’s very physiologically rational nature!); As in some sense, a mechanism and mode—or structure—ultimately of protecting the collective group from human, individual nature itself.

In this way, the group’s physiology and physiological projection is essentially limited in the posited, conceptual definition of it—because individuals cannot undo logical tenets of what becomes a cultural proposition: its logic is beyond contradiction, and thus inaccessible to individual force of rational will and physio-rational imposition. And group integrity as stability (in its ideas and thus in individual’s physiological response and projection) is effectively put beyond the reach of the force of individuality itself.

Cargo Cults, the Kenaima and God (for example) all follow the same central structuring and positing of logic on the non-apprehensible, logically non-approachable and that which necessarily cannot be contradicted; that assures group preservation through the containment of individual physio-rational will to imposition. And cultural logic, because it is held desperately on to by the group as of extreme physiological duress and need, becomes a eventually, a form of normative authority over the limits of individual experience—that is finally an authority over identity, or the better part of it; but of course, not completely because the cultural and anthropologically structural requires the challenge individuality is to it—is in fact structurally dependent on it in its very reason for being;

And typically after agriculture (or at least sedentary experience that is the anthropological context of the Carib Indians, and in regards to their need for postulating of the Kenaima) that authority will eventually require custodians, as a priestly class as component of anthropology and human societies Upton Sinclair would later refer to universally as The Priestly Lie.

Because the tacitly perceived assault on humanity by greater forces, and in regards to people’s helplessness, ultimately, at the mercy of the broader unknown mechanics and force of the natural world, becomes physiologically an invigorated conformity with exactly what people know to be real—that which they can touch, gain warmth from and protect themselves with; circumstances and conditions of immediate bodily experience, that, if not for a postulated counterforce of permanent cosmic and existential siege, would be less bearable in themselves. That is, a logic-based, semiotic explanation as not only a comfort in rational understanding (though not empirical, but still rational), but also a crucial source of exhilaration through fear towards a living, finally, in a physiology of gratefulness for what one in fact is, and for what one in fact does have.

And that need crucially from the standpoint of a force of physiological immobilization of agrarian anthropology, over the millennium and to the present has not changed at all; rather only in regards to the sources of culturally-postulated fear, which need not be necessarily of a religious nature, but only remote enough so that its rational positing cannot be easily challenged by individuals, and only from the vantage point of just individual experience.

_________________________

–WWII experience of science, like an all-powerful individuality naturally removed from the physio-opprobic restraints as definition of the group, who could very well know no limits whatsoever… (Hitler, Japanese Militarism.)

–The Kenaimas are little people who live in the depths of the forest and come out at night to attack people—to kill them outright or to inflict some punishment upon them which will eventually cause their death. They may be hiding in lonely places waiting an opportunity to spring upon a passing victim. They are real men, not spirits, but they can do things that other men cannot do. No man ever saw one of these kenaimas; they are known only by what they accomplish. They never attack a man except when he is alone. Therefore a man never travels alone, hunts alone, nor even goes out of his house alone at night for any purpose. The reason the kenaima will not attack two people is because they must not be seen, not because they are afraid. Another peculiarity about the Kenaima, a very significant one, is that he never draws blood nor leaves visible signs of his attack. The victim always dies in three days. There is no cure. The things the kenaima does to his victim are very interesting. He catches him, throws him down and pierces his tongue with a poisoned stick, which causes it to swell up so he cannot speak plainly. The victim goes home and dies in three days. Or, he throws his victim down, presses out the end of the intestine and pricks it or ties it up so there can be no evacuation, or, he may simply wrestle with the victim causing irritation of the skin. In every case the victim dies in three days. No wonder the kenaimas are feared above all things. The piazong has no power over the Keniamas and may himself be attacked by them.

A man never dies a natural death, he is always killed either by the Kenaimas or the evil spirits sent by the piazong of an enemy tribe…(Pg. 74-75)

Man should live forever if it where not for the kenaimas and evil spirits which lurk about and kill him whenever opportunity offers. (Pg. 81)

The Central Caribs, William Curtis Farbee. University of Pennsylvania (University Museum) 1924

5) Anthropology’s Problem of The Bodily Self(2)

The Opprobrium Self is a bodily moral-rational self, once it is forced from the zoomorphic into her own bodily awareness and regard as of external, social reality always in the others; and because contemplating what I am not, is the first physio-sensory step towards knowing what I am.

And may very well be the only step the individual actually takes as self, finally, in permanent tension with being in what it she is not; as negatively-defined and so a situational, positional sense of self with regards to the others. Because the core of opprobrium is zoomorphic and so inaccessible to the rational mind that is itself based—paradoxically and culturally—in fact on it; and it is as if the character of a story would then impossibly seek to address the author and the character’s creator. And opprobrium becomes the culturally structural enforcer of individuality itself, in our belonging to the group that can in fact never completely be; and opprobrium’s force is in fact in its inaccessibility by the individual, much in the way religion itself must posit its logical tenets on exactly that which can never be contradicted (nor empirically confirmed) so that it may, too, be permanently beyond the possibility of further physiologically rational imposition by individuals (although fortunately for culture itself, they are still going to try!)

Because historical religions are also a tale of spin-offs, and an evolution of physiologically-rational imposition by different, usually geographically specific, human groups, in regards to the same basic tenets and postulations of a once specific and original creed.

Why is that?

_________________________

(6)Two-component and compartmentalized entities: how once side relates to the other and the relationships of mutual inter-physiological dependence that arise.

[5jul16]

Cultural tradition and ideas at the service of collectively systemic physiological possibility and its stability

Because a social and culturally systemic context is created of structurally physiological stability—in the anthropological grounding tradition offers; as a where to go back to, and that which culturally can be taken for granted, ultimately, by everyone. Identity, yes; but specifically a physiological stability and freedom because of the ideas tradition provides, off of which and in contrast to, other modes of physiological being can take place: calmly and in an invigorated security of a culturally contextual safety belt and tether.

De-contextualized propositions cannot be contradicted

And become logically non-approachable; and that if broad enough can be re-edified in regards and response to new changes, adjustments and evolution of the culturally rational. One step beyond and one step ahead, into the realm of the logically non-approachable and therefore impossibly contradicted; and truth becomes what the powerful (for whatever reason and circumstances; as of whatever form of legitimacy) say it is.

Semiotics [DEFINES] anthropologically structural human physiology;

BUT

A physiology of conviction can end up imposing on the semiotic through physio-rational imposition; because physiologically rational imposition of meaning is true, underlying force of the anthropological.

 

Thus anthropological stability is a business of semiotic control; first and foremost as definition, but necessarily also as some form of cultural imposition-against the physiologically rational nature and force of individuals. Ideally, of course, control that is ultimate systemic physiological stability does not necessarily negate the possibility of auxiliary spaces of physiological and physiologically rational exhilaration (such as the pop-cultural, and generally the representational aspect of the semiotic—and all that is effectively art from this anthropologically structural standpoint); but such spaces and such a servicing of the deeper, intrinsic realms of physiological experience must be structurally subordinate to the extrinsically cultural and semiotic itself.

Because only through logic is the force of physiologically rational imposition of individuality held in check; in the normative force of the culturally conceptual and semiotic offered to and over the individual, and as a physiologically relevant (opprobrium-enforced) certainty of what is from the group’s standpoint; in regards to how we approach knowing itself, as the group we ultimately become—and for all individualities of mind through the body who would also know themselves as one of us.

Because if culture cannot tell you what are, you will end up imposing your own logical understanding on your experience (because you need to through an intrinsic physiology towards comfort that is the deeper nature of physiological experience, and so thus requires of the rational logic of the collective group; that is rational first and foremost because it is collective, and not always necessarily empirical). But the comfort of anthropological stability, and the complacency individuals truly demand of it, is because a logic of knowing is unfailingly always provided for the individual;

As cultural narratives in multiple forms, origin and nature, towards an understanding of what we are—or perhaps more crucially—could be, that is existentially our permanent becoming, and really optimum mode of physiological being.

And structurally it is individuality as will towards physiologically rational imposition—even in civilized contexts given my intrinsic, deeper opprobrium-based physiological nature remains—that becomes culture’s opportunity of being in its own renewal as an exercising of itself—in the very challenge individuality represents to it.

And so the two sides of the anthropologically structural achieve a most invigorated equilibrium of opposing force as balance, in the comfort of the culturally-posited rational on one hand (along with the extrinsic, opprobrium-driven quality of socially functional individuality)—versus the true underlying physiologically rational nature of individual struggle to be as belonging to the group, but forever corporeally excluded.

And paradox becomes the foundation of individual experience, of the anthropologically real itself, and not just a literary notion:

And it is in her zoomorphic terror of not belonging that the need as relief of the rational itself is so powerful for the individual—because it is a form of being as belonging in at least the physiologically conceptual realm of the individual, in a rationality that is rational first and foremost because it is collective; that is a belonging as finally a partaking of whatsoever things the group posits as true.

And in their truth is also their physiology; and so in my partaking of their truths, also is my physiology similarly one and the same. But no closer will the nature of my bodily experience ever allow me to approach…

And so it is that the unreasonableness of the irritated individual is proximate to a form of responsibility in the anthropologically structural as well, as a necessary bearing of the circumstances of the problem of bodily experience for the individual.

Because everything else around her, frequently from the standpoint of the culturally rational (more so in consumer anthropology) is frequently about ignoring what you intrinsically are.

Because aggregated consumer models of market business administration and study of demand, do not really know what to do with deeper nuances of individuality.

I mean how much money can you make off of just an individual, anyway?

Bigger investment planning favors a more structural individuality and physiological uniformity, anyway.

Because serious investment planning towards capital return, over time, has always taken place at an anthropological level of agency through human, physiological demographics.

(Correct me if I am wrong!)

 

 

 

(7)YUXTAPOSICION Y CAUSALIDAD (CRASO ERROR)

La paradoja económica globalLEÓNEL FERNÁNDEZ

8 JUL 2016 – 18:00 EDT

Ese predominio del sector financiero o financiarización de la economía global, que empezó a surgir hace más de tres décadas, ha implicado una desnaturalización de la manera en que un sistema económico debe funcionar, y ha sido, por consiguiente, la causa fundamental que desató la crisis financiera global y de que ésta todavía no haya podido ser superada. [FALSA CAUSALIDAD INICIAL NO LOGICAMENTE DETERMINADA]

 

[ARGUMENTO LOGICO POSTERIOR POR TANTO DISVIRTUADO]

-Como consecuencia de la evolución de ese fenómeno de financiarización, entre 1980 y 2014, los activos financieros a nivel mundial se expandieron de 12 billones a 294 billones de dólares.

-En el mismo periodo, los contratos de derivados pasaron de un billón a 692 billones de dólares, una suma fabulosa, sin antecedentes en la historia, que implica que han pasado a representar cerca del 70% de los activos financieros a nivel global.

-Más aun, los derivados cuyo valor era cercano al PIB mundial en 1980, pasaron a representar 10 veces el valor de la capacidad mundial de generación de riquezas a partir de la segunda mitad de la década del 2000.

-Debido al volumen de los montos señalados, puede considerarse que, en estos momentos, en la economía global no hay falta de liquidez, sino todo lo contrario. Si es así, ¿cómo es posible que haya una situación de virtual parálisis en el crecimiento de la economía mundial, sobre la base de una presunta falta de liquidez?

-El exceso de liquidez que actualmente encontramos en la economía mundial no se utiliza para invertir en la producción industrial, de alimentos, de fuentes de energía o de obras de infraestructuras. Al revés, se emplea, fundamentalmente, en la realización de transacciones financieras, que en lugar de contribuir a crear un tipo de riqueza material que satisfaga la demanda de los consumidores, crea, más bien, un tipo de riqueza artificial fundamentado en papeles comerciales.

-De esa manera, suscita un potencial de crisis que es generado por la existencia de una riqueza ficticia que se incrementa a gran velocidad, sobrepasando al mismo tiempo los volúmenes de producción y de comercio a nivel mundial.

-Como consecuencia del predominio de un modelo de financiarización de la economía global, desde el 2007 hasta el 2014, la deuda pública mundial, en lugar de disminuir, se ha incrementado en 60 billones de dólares, para un total de 200 billones de dólares. [FALSA CAUSALIDAD, DE NUEVO]

-La humanidad nunca conoció cifras semejantes. Todo eso desborda la imaginación y toda capacidad de raciocinio. Sin embargo, es la realidad en la que el mundo se encuentra en estos momentos; y es, naturalmente, lo que explica el estancamiento secular en el crecimiento de la economía mundial y la razón por la cual, a pesar de todos los esfuerzos desplegados, aún no se logra superar la crisis financiera global iniciada en el 2007.

-Por tales motivos, se requiere enfrentar esta situación y desactivar lo que a todas luces constituye una bomba de tiempo. Se trata de poner en ejecución un plan global de regulación del sistema financiero, que puede ser liderada, en el marco de la Organización de las Naciones Unidas, por las principales instituciones financieras multilaterales.

-Desafortunadamente, a pesar de la irrefutable necesidad de ese cambio, todavía hay voces, que en defensa de sus privilegios, se levantan en franca oposición, poniendo en peligro al resto de la humanidad.

_______________________________________________________________

Leonel Fernández, expresidente de República Dominicana, es fundador de la Fundación Global Democracia y Desarrollo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The counter-assumption, that “correlation proves causation,” is considered a questionable cause logical fallacy in that two events occurring together are taken to have a cause-and-effect relationship. This fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for “with this, therefore because of this,” and “false cause.” A similar fallacy, that an event that follows another was necessarily a consequence of the first event, is sometimes described as post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for “after this, therefore because of this.”)

[Sequential correlation (temporal) is not necessarily causation; Coincidence of two elements thus in time or in space, is not necessarily causation (but does not either rule out causation!)-and so thus becomes a form of ambivalence/ambiguity the physiologically rational will of human imposition tends often to rush blindly into, simply because it is available as a possible act of logical inference; and that a physiology of rational conviction in some sense could be understood as having right to in fact do so!]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

It is often shortened to simply post hoc fallacy. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc (“with this, therefore because of this”), in which two things or events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection.

The following is a simple example:

The rooster crows immediately before sunrise; therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise.

En cualquier caso:

Planteamiento logicamente disvirtuado que aun retiene valor real y práctico, precisamente en la dualidad de experiencia que establece entre lo racionalmente comprendida frente a la posibilidad misma de lo social tal y como lo conocemos; situación en la que el no tener que enfrentarse a una racionalidad insoportable se convierte en proposito por tanto real y lógico (y pues racionalemente justificado; esto es en el no ser racional intencionadamente por evadir los rigores imposibles logicos del ahora histórico y actual); lo social en tanto bienestar material basado sobre el orden fisiologico estrcutral-colectivo y sistemico, que es el sustento tecnico base del orden antropologico finalmente, y a traves de la circunstancia del dinero.

Como ficcion crucial y sine qua non respecto la posibilidad de mantener las ideas en las que vivimos y que son la base verdadera-aunque pocas veces comprendida-de la experiencia civilizada en si…

El contexto precisa por tanto de aquellos otros elementos negativos que igualmente avalan en su misma contradiccion y enfrentamiento la estabildad base misma; esto es, en la critica racional del mismo contexto (no siempre y necesariamente  ni estricta ni formalmente logica); y respecto la protesta que solo en contadas veces deviene y degenra en violencia real pero esencialmente limitada en su alcance;

Pero en todos los casos respecto en realidad la posibilidad fisiologica vigorizada que todos conocemos y damos por tipicamente real como experiencia de los entornos y contextos colectivos civilizados (que por su misma natureleza de retencion estructural que es una contencion efectiva de la violencia fisiologica y fisio-racional del ser humano requieren de la posibilidad de espacios de vigorizacion, que es como una suspension estructural fisiologica sin la cual la misma viabilidad esturctural no es posible-porque llegamos fisiologicamente a no poder tolerar la immobilizacion fisiolgica real de la que de repente depende la civilizacion, a partir historicamente de la agricultura.)

______________________________

Pero Leonel Fernández (el autor del texto inicial) no es consciente de nada de esto que dices…

 

 

OPPROBRIUM, FISIOLOGICAL MILLEU, AND THE BIG SYSTEMIC

Mientras hilan las Parcas mi mortaja,

una cruz de ceniza hago en la frente;

el tiempo es la carcoma, que trabaja

por Satanás. ¡Y Dios es el Presente!                             

 

(Valle-Inclán de Rosa gnóstica)

 

 

 

INDEX

(1)El individuo ante la ciudad

(2)[Semioticas culturales a espaldas de su propia fisiologia antropologica*]

(3)Felix de Azua

(4) CIVILIZACION DESPUES DE LA AGRICULTURA

(5) VÍCTOR GÓMEZ PIN

(6)OPPROBRIUM AND HUMAN GROUPS

(7) Joaquin Estefanía, en El País 3jul16

(8)Watergate and Opprobrium Forces in All The President’s Men (1976)

(9) Harry Caul’s Calling in The Conversation (1974)

10)  M.PAGEL’S GROUP OF MONKEYS SCENARIO AND VIRUS MECHANISM DIACHRONY OF OPPROBRIUM

11) What is this that is The Big Systemic?

12) A Story of Opprobrium at the Center of You

13)Geometric Opprobrium Games

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1)El individuo ante la ciudad

Yo siempre puedo dormir, pero hoy no puedo. Así que he salido del cuarto y ahora escribo, en mi estudio, mientras la ciudad, al otro lado, permanece galvanizada de indiferencia ante los que no podemos dormir, los atiborrados de angustia, los suicidas, los enfermos, los locos y los solos. [Leila Guerriero]

 

[VERSUS]

 

Cada noche la ciudad se hace mar, se pone, como Moby Dick de negrura, proa a la noche alta, el suenno impenetrable. Una Armada vencida de cemento flota en la oscuridad con rumbo a la alborada. En la muerte del suenno vamos hacia mannana.

Al apargarse las bombillas, se embarcan los marineros del suenno y del cansancio. Cuidades en la noche como morgues templados, como monstrous dormidos que roncan y se quejan. Las camas se hacen barcos, viajando a las tinieblas. El carnaval de los dormidos abre sus puertas cada madrugada.

[Carlos Hernandez Olmos,1985]

 

Transcripciones zoomorfas en la semiotica…

Ambos textos son la misma contemplacion de los otros que es el medio humano colectivo de la misma posibilididad de la indiviudalidad singular propia (con todo tipo de perspectivismo particular y necesaria adversidad, claro está); textos diferentes y enfrentados, sin embargo, respecto la posición digamos de fuerza del individudo ante el grupo dibujado-en el primer caso como una presencia definitioria del yo como objeto mas bien denigrado por lo estructural en sí (un yo que es o bien un angustioso, un suicida, un enfermo, loco o que está solo-y culpable, ademas de no estar dormido-); que es un yo claramente a la defensiva que de hecho se mensoprecia en ser yo frente a los demas imaginados y de los que queda así claramente defenestrado (y ademas se culpa implicitamente a sí mismo de ello);

 

El segundo texto, por contra, es un yo que se impone en la legitimidad de propio punto de observacion respecto del medio, que constituye en rigor una crítica y cuestionamiento del mismo, y no la autodenigración de si mismo que es el punto incial y de partida del primer texto.

 

En cualquer caso ambas visions son en sí la posibilidad misma de un continuum zoomorfo, en un sentido o el otro y de cualquier poscionamiento posible del yo respecto de grupo que de la misma subconciencia animal humana (zoomorfa, preceismanente) brota de nuevo y de forma permanante en la bio-cognición neustra;

 

Y que nostros en nuestras posibilidades culturales de lo racional particular hemos de transcribir en un sentido o del otro, segun las metaforas mas o menos acostumbrados y culturalmente consabidos-que si no, ¿como conno nos vamos a entender?

 

Y universalmetne se ve con nitidez que el terreno real del yo es la fuerza misma de su imposicion propia-y la contemplacion respecto de la misma- de su propia seguridad en la capacidad de autoimposicion; que inversamente y en el otro extremo transformado, está el ser objeto de la imposición de los demás imaginados y que quieras o no, no deja de ser una forma de pertenecer, igualmente.

 

Adcionalmente zoomorfa porque es una lucha subconsciente y salvaje por ser que no tiene mas remedio, después de la agricultura, que proyectar y vivirse en el plano social y necesariamente semióitco (y no tanto respecto de lo físico, evidentemente).

 

Por eso el hombre precisó crucialmente de la semiótica (el lenguaje, la religión) como plano de ficción conceptual pero tambien fisiológica y de su propia posibilidad de supervivencia que es la posibilidad del yo en la preservación en realidad del colectivo en sí y el orden social que hacia posible de hecho la semiótica.

 

Lo que apunta, finalmente, a un espacio fisiológico-totémico y mental respecto una conceptualizicion mental y cognitiva que no llega a serlo nunca (no transcribimos mentalmente la figura icónica de ningún grupo respecto del dilema moral, interna nuestra), y que por lo tanto permanece constante en la frontera de lo zoomorfo (ya racional quiza en la fuerza del objeto que es el individuo en lo que ha de ser respecto de los otros) pero que no es semiótica ni simbólicamente comprehensible.

 

El oprobio pues como una racionalidad zoomorfa y bisgra respecto la racionalidad cultural simbólica y semiótica (esto es, socialmente compartida y estandarizada)?

 

_________________________________

Agriculture=Language, God, Semiotic Self; and Moral Dilemma as anthropological stability against the force of immobilization that is the consequence of agriculture (and hence the need for physiological, physio-rational tension in the individual that is no longer immediately available because of technical, social changes away ultimately from the realm of the purely physical; meaning that moral dilemma becomes a stand-in experience for movement itself and of the greatest structurally anthropological significance).

 

 

(2)[Semioticas culturales a espaldas de su propia fisiologia antropologica*]

1)…(David Trueba 12may16) Existe un acuerdo universal para tratar de no quebrar el mito de los Estados Unidos, porque en el fondo sigue siendo la esencia de un sueño compartido, el destilado de fabricaciones idílicas no siempre reales. Por eso es interesante recalar en el desamparo de quienes viven en Nueva York, en la soledad, la incomunicación, la fragilidad de los servicios públicos, en la falta de protección, sin caer en soflamas ideológicas ni satanizaciones del capitalismo, sino concentrados en no copiar sus defectos. 

 

Gracias al cine y la televisión, la música y la literatura, un pedazo de nuestros sueños son siempre sueños norteamericanos. Pero cuando uno ve conformarse las ciudades europeas a imagen y semejanza de algunos de sus peores errores urbanísticos y humanos, agradece que se repare en la contradicción de las sociedades tan desiguales como la norteamericana.

…

La confusión esencial de un país puritano, pero que al mismo tiempo explota comercialmente la transgresión, la hipersexualidad, la violencia y el exceso. Cualquiera que conozca Estados Unidos conoce sus brutales contrastes, capaces de lo mejor y lo peor, del respeto a la sabiduría casi reverencial en algunas instituciones, pero también el ensalzamiento de la majadería en tantas otras.

 

Hillary Clinton podría enfrentarse al gran fantasma de su vida, que en ocasiones anteriores ha ensombrecido sus ambiciones, ese capricho del carisma posado en sus adversarios y jamás en ella, pese al tesón y el ahínco por coronar su carrera como la primera mujer presidenta del país.

 

Trump es la pesadilla hecha realidad de un partido republicano histérico y radical. Es el candidato bananero, que iguala a su país con las repúblicas que más desprecia. No es un accidente. Es una consecuencia. Eso es lo más triste del asunto.

 

 

___________________________________________

*Explicar el titulo es el ejercicio conceptual-teorico

 

 

 

2)Antonio Munnoz Molina (14may16) [El tiempo fisiologico-totemico mental]

…era más consciente de algo en lo que no se suele reparar demasiado: la pintura existe en el espacio, pero sucede en el tiempo; el tiempo interior y concentrado [fisiologico-mental] de la representación y del proceso pictórico y el tiempo sucesivo [fisiologico-mental] de la mirada que la examina, del espectador que permanece inmóvil o se acerca o se aleja unos pasos de ella, que va advirtiendo cada vez más detalles, y que al ser consciente de ellos modifica la primera impresión.

 

Contemplar un cuadro no es quedarse pasivamente ante él, sino ejercer una actividad intelectual y sensorial de primer orden, tan profunda y tan rica como la del lector que al recorrer los signos impresos sobre el papel o la pantalla lleva a cabo complejas operaciones neuronales que duran milisegundos, y que despiertan en su imaginación voces, presencias, mundos enteros…[no se puede explicar la realidad fisiologica en ultima instancia sin referencia a la FUERZA BIOLOGICA DEL OPROBIO que es de la posibilidad misma del yo respecto de la contemplacion fisiologicamente racional-moral del mundo externo social (imediato y tambien de forma mas abstracta) especificamente en los rasgos fisicos humanos que la percepcion humana parece ya estar intensamente sensible en su misma biologia-particularmente respecto a la simetria facial humana (y animal); y en lo icónico mental está en realidad la misma fisiologia individual y semiótica del que contempla (en una especie de memoria fisiológica, no solo pictórica-y ademas fisiologica-social al menos sobre este punto del oprobio, que es, como digo, la posibilidad misma del yo porque obliga a la contemplacion de los demas (que es un exteriorizarse del individuo en los otros respecto en realidad del propio ser y estar social individual; que es por tanto un punto inicial de una racionalidad sujeto-objeto, pre-cultural y pre-semiótica, y mas racional que moral pues solo conoce la fuerza fisica de otros y su propia carencia de ella, que logicamente el yo se pondrá a buscar formas y maneras de compensar ya de forma fisiologicamente racional dicha carencia, sin duda. Y el yo emerge en la contemplacion terrorífica del oprobio al que le obliga necesariamente la existencia de los otros siempre en su superioridad numérica que es de por siempre ya jamás el ser individual en la vulnerablidad respecto de la pertenencia social (lo que postula desde luego el terror zomorfo no consciente como punto inicial paradójicamente del yo racional humano, que es repentinamente y para siempre un yo en su misma racionalidad feroz por ser, siendo lo social semiótico lo que le acaba por adornar humanemente, por fin, despues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(3)Felix de Azua

23 MAY 2016 – 18:00 EDT

 

…La vida de Víctor Gómez Pin se parece más a la de un antiguo mediador entre la divinidad y los mortales que a la de un profesor posmoderno. El libro que está terminando enlaza la ciencia física de la Jonia arcaica con los quanta en un arco colosal que cubre 26 siglos:

 

eso que llamamos “lo físico”,

¿era lo mismo para los jonios y también para los premios Nobel actuales?

¿Vivimos en el mismo mundo “físico”? ¿O solo el lenguaje nos mantiene en un mismo mundo a los millones de humanos que ya han pasado por la muerte, pero que vivieron en mundos físicamente distintos?

 

Gómez Pin asegura que no puede haber física sin metafísica. Y yo afirmo que ya no habría humanidad si no existiera gente como él.

 

 

 

____________________

A lo largo de medio siglo ha constatado que no podía iluminar algunas esquinas de esa oscuridad sin dominar técnicas matemáticas, genéticas y físicas. A ello, por tanto, dedicó innumerables días hasta poder caminar por la superficie de la física cuántica o de las otras disciplinas sin hundirse. Esta dedicación pasional no tiene apenas relación con la Universidad, en la cual ha trabajado toda la vida porque facilitaba su investigación, pero en la que es casi imposible implicar al alumnado. 

 

 

 

 

4)

CIVILIZACION DESPUES DE LA AGRICULTURA

EXPERIENCIA FISIOLOGICA (DE POR SI “OPROBRICA”)

NECESIDAD DE IDEALIZACION SEMIOTICA (LA METAFISCA)

 

La civilizacion REQUIERE DE el desarrollo semiotico POR LAS CIRCUNSTANCIAS Y PROBLEMA QUE REPRESENTA la experiencia fisiologica humana en contextos sedentarios y respecto de los cuales no es apta. La semiotica es tambien fisiologica y por tanto se transforma en espacio ficcionalemente fisiologica, como sucedanno y sustitucion de la experiencia real y fisica que los grupos humanos pre-acricolas no necesitaban (evidentemente porque eran fisiologicamete y en su fisiologia, a diferencia del hombre posterior, quien al no vivir en y de su fisiologia, esta obligado a vivir en la proyeccion personal-semiótica de la misma).

 

El hombre pre-agricola no proyecta su ser fisiológico respecto idealizaciones semióticas, sino que simplemente es en su fisiologia y la fuerza del oprobio interno e individual, que es la piedra angular de los grupos humanos a través del yo (y clave probablemente de la supervivencia misma de la especie.) Nosotros igualmente vivivmos antropologicamente del oprobio pero con la necesidad nueva de proyectar nuestra voluntad fisiologica de ser, y puesto que las circunstancias de la agricultura ya no nos dejan simplemente vivir solo fisiologicamente, con la necesidad nuestra ademas de ocultar y ficcionalizar antropolgociamente este hecho (esto que llamamos cultura humana).

 

Problema

La semiótica por ser también fisiológica desde la percepción humana (aunque no del todo física), puede inducir cultualmente hacia la separación de la naturaleza real, física de los seres humanos respecto una esencia intrínseca subyacente; que lo semiótico auxiliarmente la estimula, pero es la cultura antropológica que se define permanenente y crípticamente respecto lo sub-cultural fisiológico humano-aquello que es el hearth de Spengler (en la traduccion inglesa de su obra) que viene a ser la conneción inexorable física del hombre con el mundo espacial real, pese a toda los intentos de la cultura por alejarnos de ello; y el problema es que antes de la imposición tecnologica llamada industrialmente revolucionaria, despues del consumismo sobre lo antropológico humano, la cultura naturalmente ya cuidaba de esta situación en el no alejarese demasiado de su propio aunque críptico basamento real arquitectónico y estructural, esto es la experiencia física-fisiológica humana; que la cultura la puede negar, reprimir y ficcionalmente canalizar, pero nunca distanciarse de todo. Porque la cultura en realidad esta determinada precisamente por aquello que oculta decorosamente y por mor de un mayor bienestar colectivo, social sin duda. Pero la ciencia y dentro de su propia fisiologia de imposicion humana, no ha entendido-ni entiende hoy-esto. Vean el problema: la antropologia humana estructuralmente vulnerable a sí misma.

 

Porque, ¿quién duda de la ciencia?

 

Pero la experiencia fisológica humana colectiva tiene que estar cabalmente sometida al orden de lo semiótico-cultural; pero no de forma frívola, finalmente, que viene a ser muchas veces y en su natural falta de circunspección, una fisiología no sometida para nada sino desbocada y salvaje, a pesar de los trapos de seda con que el mono intente arroparse.

 

 

 

 

 

(5) VÍCTOR GÓMEZ PIN

27 MAY 2016 – 18:00 EDT

 

PUNTOS FISIOLOGICOS, BIEN MIRADO Y RESPECTO DEL YO OPROBRICO

Apostando a que conocer es lo nuestro, Aristóteles nos ayudó a ser lógicos[INTELECTUALMENTE Y FUERA DE LA LOGICA SOLO SEMIOTICA-CULTURAL] explicitando criterios que posibilitan el distinguir o clasificar, y de su mano establecía aun Lineo sus taxonomías

…

Aristóteles nos ayuda a percibir la causa de la emoción que provoca la representación trágica, y en sus reflexiones ético-políticas nos mueve a entender las tremendas consecuencias de la ausencia de las condiciones sociales que garanticen la dignidad material;

…

La libertad era a tal punto considerada por Aristóteles como condición de la realización del ser humano que la condición de esclavo equivalía para él a haber sido repudiado de la humanidad.

…

Actualizando el problema, cabría decir que tal realización del ser humano pasa por abolir las condiciones sociales que mutilan las potencialidades innatas de los hombres,[EL PROBLEMA QUE ES LA ANTROPOLOGIA UNIVERSAL] las cuales conducen a esas sorprendentes interrogaciones de los niños, resultado de un estupor ante el entorno que sería según Aristóteles el primer motor de la filosofía. [INTERPRETACION FISIO-SENSORIAL EXTRA-SEMIOTICA, NO ESTRUCTURAL Y POR TANTO EXTRAMUROS DE LO CULTURALMENTE POSTULADO-RACIONAL; RESPECTO POR TANTO DE UN YO MUCHO MAS INTRINSECO, INDEPENDIENTE (Y POR TANTO MAS RACIONAL!!!)]

 

“Pues sólo cuando las necesidades de la vida y las exigencias de confort y recreo estaban cubiertas empezó a buscarse un conocimiento de este tipo, que nadie debe buscar con vistas a algún provecho. Pues así como llamamos libre a la persona cuya vida no está subordinada a la del otro, así la filosofía constituye la ciencia libre, pues no tiene otro objetivo que sí misma”. [REQUIERE PUES DE OTRO MODO FISIOLOGICO DE SER Y ESTAR QUE LO ESTRUCTURAL ANTROPOLOGICO INICIALMENTE NO INCLUYE RESPECTO SU MECANICA MAS PROFUNDA DE EXILIO SOLO PARCIAL DEL YO OPROBRICO QUE LUEGO RETIENE CRIPTICAMENTE COMO BASAMENTO PROPIO DENTRO DE UNA POSIBLE SEGUNDA FISIOLOGIA MEDIATIZADA CULTURAL (REPSECTO A SERES HUMANOS QUE SOLO SON CONSCIENTES DE SU PROPIO SER IMMEDIATO SIN QUE SEA PARA ELLOS NI CULTURAL NI RESPECTO DE NINGUN OTRO MODO FISIOLOGICO PROPIO PERO DESCONOCIDO…AUNQUE ALGO INTUYEN)…Y ES QUE LA NARRATIVA MITOLOGICA ES UNA CONECCION DIRECTA PERO SUB-CULTURAL CON ESTA FISIOLOGIA PRIMARIA RESPECTO DEL IMPULSO INDIVIDUAL COMO HEROE; QUE CATEGORICAMENTE DESAFIA DE ALGUNA MANERA Y EN ALGUN GRADO EL IMPETU ESTANDARIZANTE ESTRUCTUAL DE LO ESTABLECIDO, CONSABIDO CULTURAL A FAVOR COMO MODELO PUBLICO, SEMIOTICO DE CONTEMPLACION DE ESTA OTRA PARTE MAS PROFUNDA DE NOSOTROS QUE PUDIERA CONCEBIRSE CONCEPTUALMENTE COMO REHEN ESTRUCTURAL DEL ORDEN ANTROPOLOGO AL QUE LA PROPIA ANTROPOLOGIA NO TIENE MAS REMEDIO QUE HACER SU CAUTIVO SECRETO Y NUNCA RACIONALMENTE COMPRENDIDA PUESTO QUE LA NATURALEZA ZOOMORFA HUMANA EN ESTE PUNTO DE LA CONFIGURACION DEL YO RESPECTO DEL GRUPO (EL OPROBRIO FISIO-BIOLOGICO) NO ADMITE MODIFICACION ALGUNA. Y EN RIGOR PUES ES LA CULTURA RACIONAL SEMIOITCA QUE SE HA CONFIGURADO A PARTIR DE LO YO OPROBRICO EN SU MISMA DEPENDENCIA (NO CULTURALMENTE COMPRENDIDA SINO SOLO EN LA RACIONALIDAD PRIMARIA FISIOLOGICA DE LA PERCEPCION DE LA MITOLOGIA DEL HEROE); QUE VIENE A SER SU PROPIA SAVIA FINALMENTE VITAL Y ESTRUCTRAL DE SUPERVIVENCIA DEL GROUP-EN LA FUERZA (VERDADERA FEROCIDAD) DEL INDIVIDUO FISICO RESPECTO SU VULNERABLIDAD ANTE LA FUERZA NUMERICA SUPERIOR DEL GRUPO, QUE NO PUDIENDO IGUALARLA, PRECISAMENTE EN LO FISIOLOGICAMENTE RACIONAL, AGUDO Y CALCULADOR BUSCA SOBREIMPONERSE O AL MENOS UNA POSICION DE FUERZA AL MISMO. Y RESPECTO AL COTIDIANO MUNDANO, NO OBSTANTE, VA EL INDIVIDUO BIEN SERIVDO DE IDEALIZACIONES RESPECTO SU VERDADERA SER OPROBRICO-BIOLOGICO QUE COMO TENSION IDEAL SI QUE HACE BIEN AL ORDEN ESTURCTUAL SIN DUDA QUE ES ALGO ASI COMO LA VIDA MISMA ANTROPOLOGICA EN SU CONJUNTO MAYOR DE DOS AMBITOS FISIOLOGICOS SEPERADOS PERO CONJUNTOS, SIENDO EL OPBRIO EN REALIDAD ELEMENTO DE AMBOS.

 

PORQUE EL OPROBIO ES TAMBIEN LA BASE BONDADOSA Y LUCIENTE DE LO MORAL EN SI (DE LA INDIVIDUALIDAD VERSUS LOS OTROS) Y ESTO QUE SOY EN ELLOS Y EN MI PERTENECER EMOTIVO Y VITAL PERO QUE NO ES DE ELLOS (LO FISICIO CORPOREO PERSONAL DE CADA UNO).

 

La enseñanza de este texto es que las condiciones de posibilidad de la filosofía supondrían para cada ciudadano la oportunidad de retorno a la disposición de espíritu que caracterizaba su infancia. De tal forma que una educación que no quiera confundirse con la mera instrucción, una educación digna del ideario aristotélico, sólo estará movida por alcanzar un objetivo: en libertad… pensar. [PERO NO SIGUE EL CAMINO LOGICO DE DESAROLLO CONCEPTUAL RESPECTO ESTRUCTURA SOCIAL Y EL SABER, CON TODAS LAS CONSECUENCIAS (REPECTO LA FISIOLOGIA FINALMENTE VERSUS LO SEMIOTICO-RACIONAL CULTURAL QUE ES MENOS LOGICO FINALMENTE; PRECISAMENTE Y EN PARTE PORQUE LA CULTURA SEMIOTICA BUSCA DEFINIR PRECISAMENTE LA EXPERIENCIA FISIOLOGICA HUMANA SUSTRAYENODLA DE ALGUNA MANERA DE LO FISICO REAL SOCIAL (NO MEDIATIZADO), LLEVANDOLO AL TERRENO DE UNA FISIOLOGIA SEMIOITCA Y CULTURALMENTE POSTULADA ESTANDAR NECESARIAMENTE; QUE SIGNIFICA DESPUES UN INTERES FORZOSA ESTRUCTUAL POR PARTE DE LA CULTURA EN MANTENER CRIPTICO LO FISIOLOGICO YA  SOMETIDO-QUE ES PRECISAMENTE LO QUE DEFINE LO CULTURALMENTE RACIONAL Y QUE SIN ELLO NO EXISTIRIA (ESTO ES LA CULTURA) COMO TAL. SU ESENCIA, QUIERE DECIR ESTO, ESTA PRECISAMENTE EN LO QUE NO REVELA PERO QUE ESTA AHI PUESTO QUE LA EXPERIENCIA FISIOLIOGICA PERSONAL REAL Y FISICA, NO TIENE PORQUE ESTAR MEDIATIZADO POR LO CONCEPTUAL CULTURAL:

 

 

-LO FISIOLOGICO INDIVIDUAL REAL

-LO FISIOLOGICO MEDIATIZADO Y CULTURALMENTE POSTULADO, SEMIOTICO

-LA RELACION PERMANENTE COMO TENSION ENTRE AMBOS

(QUE ES PROPIAMENTE LA CULTURA (EN MAYUSCULA)

 

Víctor Gómez Pin es catedrático emérito de la UAB e investigador en l’École N. Supérieure de París.

 

 

INFERENCIA

Toda cultura remite pues una forma primaria fisiológica sobre la que se construye el armazón culturalmente postulado y semtiótica, siendo la racionalidad pues una forma de registro publico de aquello que jamás completemente puede ni debe registarse con el riesgo de la misma disipación cultural, siendo racional precisamente respecto aquello que la cultura suprime, canaliza y acaba por insturmentalizar. De tal forma que, en circunstancias especiales y especialmente arduas por grotescamente insufribles en su desnuda realidad, la cultura reacciona tambien circunstancialmente como curtina y cancel con el fin de ocultar racionalmente aquello que no se puede fisiologicamente tolerar en los mismos sentidos de percepción nuestros y respecto tambien a lo conceptual; racionalmente porque se va tanteando y viendo, y finalmente llegan muchos a comprender que no hay mas remedio que decidir por los circunloquios, rodeos comunicativos y hasta formas proactivas e intencionales de inteligente y necesaria negación; y eso muy probablemente porque la vida ha de valorarse, a pesar de todo, inexorablemente como sea mientras es. Y las formas de valorar al otro son variopintas y siempre posibles, como las infinitas formas bien cameleónicas de la esperanza misma.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(6)OPPROBRIUM AND HUMAN GROUPS

Opprobrium Rationality is bodily vulnerability; is rational violence and moral will to be, of the mind first and foremost, because how else can you actually resist, confront and take on the group and its numerical superiority that is the origin, finally, of your own sense of bodily/social self? That is, your will to belong that is really ultimately an exclusion in the fact that you live singularly in your own bodily experience; that to an extraordinary degree can make individuality itself a problem for people, and given the structural force of imposition of technological, advertizing-driven consumer society experience and its physio-semiotic lattice configuration (as symbol in fact of its structural force and imposition over the physiological; because the semiotic, and even also consumer-driven technological advances, are in fact always really about the human physiological, anyway.)[12jun16]

 

And it is the underdog as hero (perhaps as all heroes of all narratives) who possesses not only courage, but also rational acumen and a rat-like cunning…

 

OPPROBRIUM AS DISJUNCTIVE

Because it is not easy to be a hero, it is more frequently understood by individuals that it is better not to be the hero; this is because heroes as narrative and semiotic figures compensate for people’s reality of in fact necessarily needing to conform to the social force of opprobrium through their own opprobrium-based self; becomes the reason why human subjects as heroes often always are fictionally literary accounts of what the individual cannot ever actually be herself, and is the reason and force of people’s attraction to the hero figure (that is actually at least an idealization and possible partial direction of actual individual conduct, socially in at least the spirit of the hero).

 

Higher moral planes begin probably in the contemplation of the underdog that becomes a form of empathy (that is inevitably a physiological force in itself when violence as spectacle is too intense, and perceived as somehow unfair); and very likely our empathy with children and generally the underdog are because we are or have been both our selves-as a an opprobrium-based self that physiologically knows the rigors of bodily vulnerability that is a self in the very terror of that vulnerability to the group; and as a psychological self, still and always at its deepest level that is still a child (when and in the very mode individual psychology is first acquired by the individual). And additionally, because human perception is knowing what your are in the perception of what you are not, it is also a projection in fact of what you are and feel on reality itself; that is, perception is in fact multi-directional, subject and object-not just passive reception, being opprobrium (once again) the chief force of people’s distortion of their perception of especially social reality. And so it is probably viable to postulate the possibility that even forms of physiological morality, and depending on the anthro-cultural context, can be even more civilized than in contexts of semiotically-governed physiology, given the power of empathy in just the opprobrium-based mechanics of the physiological self (because human beings do not exist as individuals except as determined by the group they belong, or in someway relate to)!

 

And so in this context and following this reasoning taking things out on others is only a preliminary point of approach with regards to the greater physio-totemic itself as the physiologically moral positioning of the individual in her mind with regards to images, ideas that once perceived become a physiologically cognitive process of moral and dramatic struggle the individual wages against imagery entities of the mind of some form or another of moral threat (that is, how the force of opprobrium pushes the individual towards a basic moral self-definition within a physiologically cognitive process of the mind).

 

But although images are not reality (even if in fact perceived through real experience and assuming that experience was not in itself an intentional agency on the part of third party operatives with regard to target individual’s perception) people are vulnerable to and live effectively immersed in them.

 

This vulnerability is in fact a circumstance of culture itself in regards to nature, mode and definition of the anthropological self versus the numerical superiority of the others.

 

 

 

 

 

(7) Joaquin Estefanía, en El País 3jul16

…Se repite la historia. A mediados de los años cuarenta, el escritor austriaco Stefan Zweig, escribió sobre el retroceso internacionalista que sufrió el mundo, que tanto se parece a éste, “como la limitación de la libertad de los movimientos del hombre y la reducción de su derecho a la libertad”. Dice Zweig que todo el mundo iba donde quería y permanecía allí el tiempo que quería, que no existían permisos, autorizaciones, salvoconductos ni visados. Fue después de la Gran Guerra cuando el nacionalsocialismo comenzó a transformar el mundo y el primer fenómeno visible de esta epidemia fue la xenofobia, el odio o, por lo menos, el temor al extraño. “En todas partes la gente se defendía de los extranjeros, en todas partes los excluía. Todas las humillaciones que se habían inventado antaño solo para los criminales ahora se inflingían a todos los viajeros antes y después del viaje” (El mundo de ayer. Memorias de un europeo, El Acantilado).

 

 

 

(8)Watergate and Opprobrium Forces in All The President’s Men (1976)

Bernstein and Woodard naturally embody the hungry individual out to make a name for herself in regards to one’s field of endeavor and that professional Big Systemic one projects her own belonging to, aggressively and very much with every fiber of her youthful being; but belonging opprobically becomes also for the long line of witness and sub-employees of corrupt public officials, a serious physiologically invigorated predicament—in the feared consequences of their speaking out publically against their bosses, while suffering a certain degree of moral angst in knowing full well they should.

 

Bernstein and Woodard’s professional ambitions naturally end up targeting this very circumstance in the people they interview—and pressure, finally, to get them to give names. Because these sub-level employees actually want to establish justice, in their deeper sense of morality (that is still key to their own individuality as a consequence of their own opprobrium biology); and the fury of physio-rational imposition on the part of the reporters could thus also be ascribed to opprobrium force of cause (as well as ambition)in the very moral impulse that makes both of them individuals in regards to the group—and the claim in exactly the same sense they hold the group itself to, through the moral foundation of their writing and the societal and semiotic architecture they are part of as employees of the Washington Post at that historical moment.

 

 

_____________________

Physiology in All The President’s Men (1976) The struggle to put the narrative of events into language—ultimately text form—but through a process and context of face to face, interpersonal situations with people in interviews who are themselves fearful of the consequences of speaking, clearly—goes beyond language; that forces journalists to take notes (frenetically, desperately), and also re-construct reality of events in regards to what people are in fact afraid to put into words themselves—through the interpretation of body language, and non-linguistically structural means of communication; in also ambivalence and ambiguity, once again because individuals are afraid to clarify things explicitly in fear of the consequences of public understanding, while actually desiring at the same time and from a physio-opprobic, moral standpoint to reveal the reality of what they saw, heard, interpreted, and did (at the orders of their bosses). And so in fact do know.

 

 

 

 

(9) Harry Caul’s Calling in The Conversation (1974)

(Harry) It makes me feel….I don’t know what.

(Women) You’re not supposed to feel; you’re supposed to just do it!

 

Opprobrium context and its grammar of opprobrium; story is—on one level—about needing to be an individual through empathy, yes—but probably more powerfully through guilt itself, and understood in the individual’s contemplation of others. Film is also about power—that is specifically wrought through the subjugation and quite literal objectification (objectifying) of others as human, target subjects of surveillance. And once again and in all cases, circumstances of individual, human context are transformed into semiotic objects of contemplation, as texts or audiovisual material that can be then shown and exchanged ultimately for money, and to the general physiologically invigorated satisfaction of a higher-tiered Peeping Tom as true economic agency and paying customer/client (from the standpoint, that is, of the technician.)

 

I’m not afraid of death; I am afraid of murder (Harry, in a dream sequence)

 

You are supposed to…

Is a language structure of opprobrium, at which the individual is always really the center; as passive voice structure and apparently universally present in some form or another in surely all human languages, because it hinges semantically on a subject/object dichotomy. And the English supposed to structure (as well as the passive Se in Spanish, for example) is an implicit but direct reference to something like a vox populi force of the power of the group to impose what is, but that the individual—in her own bodily predicament and physio-rational perception, can never be entirely sure of.

 

So becomes in itself a context of individuality (what you know to be true in your perception) VERSUS what the group itself vaguely posits as rationally real; and so physio-rationally are you caught so to speak between two different realms of experience and, ultimately, meaning; as a form finally a structural invigoration against the force of physiological immobilization of agrarian anthropology, and exactly that which made language (ultimately, semiotic development itself) all the more imperious for human societies; in the anthropological security and comfort of knowing what they know, while at the same time being forced frequently to know what you gotta know for yourself. How else could you be part of the living, anthropologically structural, but still be in your own individual body?

 

Because you in fact can anthropologically be them, but they can never physically, corporeally be you, and so the question permanently put to people becomes—who is your body?

 

Character’s Fascination with Human Subjects He Turns into a Form of the Aesthetic

Because apparently he needs to, out of the emptiness of his own life-and perhaps in a need specifically to feel morally—in regards to other human beings he inevitably shares his own societal experience with.

 

What else could this be but the physio-biological mettle of the individual, also biologically embedded in collective experience as well; for how is it possible to hold on to individuality, while still being an object yourself to and of the social and anthropologically structural?

 

Through bodily feeling and sentiment, that in regards to the context and medium of the group, can only be through moral physiological entity—and given that the only person you are every really physically connected to is your mother through her womb (and those stand-ins for her your physiology only on occasion—and even then only fleetingly—intermeshes with, so to speak.)

 

Opprobrium is moral physiological entity as part of human, individual biology; as a force of ultimately rational contemplation of the logical consequences of your offense to the group (and hence their turning on you.)

 

And as a mechanism biological opprobrium is based at its deepest level on a primal and zoomorphic terror of being either expelled (abandoned) by the group, or ganged up on and slaughtered by them; that either way and one way or the other, comes down to basically the same thing in the individual’s very dependence on being in itself—biologically as a member of group.

 

And so in contexts that are no longer purely physiological, but rather semiotic (historically after agriculture or as of more permanently sedentary human experience) and so under the awning itself of the culturally-posted and only culturally-rational as ideas towards the physiological, collective order of the social and without which cultural individuality cannot be achieved—guilt can become a form of belonging itself, and especially if the individual, due to whatever circumstances of her own psychology and in regards to culture, cannot relate direct and significantly to other people in a corporally immediate physiological mode, not just physio-conceptually or in the semiotic.

 

And to a great degree this is in fact the character’s phsyio-psychological context and predicament, that pushes him to physiologically relate to the representation of the human subjects he has recorded live and in situ, but whom he does not directly, nor really personally know at all. And in their only representational entity, it is as if it were a physio-rational option of imposition he has available to him, in his loneliness and in his need to feel:

 

Because Harry Caul the surveillance man, lives life remotely as an extension himself of the power mode his higher-tiered, paying clients live in; and the drama of Coppola’s film is in Harry’s one day discovering that he is in fact a moral person, as a moral self that still needs to feel, and that he cannot simply turn away from.

 

And in that moment, in that context, it is guilt itself that helps him (at least initially) in his attempt to regain his own humanity.

 

And curiously, that is only possible once again and back to its original source and flowing spring—that it is the human heart (in its physiologically corporeal entity) in regards to the group your own biology will not allow you to do with out.

 

The cultural and anthropologically structural actually depends on it!

 

__________________________

 

 

10)  M.PAGEL’S GROUP OF MONKEYS SCENARIO AND VIRUS MECHANISM DIACHRONY OF OPPROBRIUM

A group of monkeys is in a room with a banana tethered form the ceiling. They can reach the banana by hopping up on a box. But whenever one of the them does this, they are all sprayed with water. Monkeys don’t like water…[because of genetically imposed fear of crocodiles hiding under surface of rivers, a form of aversion to depth and the threat hence of what is there but cannot be observed]

 

So, after a while, they all avoid hopping up on the box and even restrain each other from doing so. Then a monkey is removed and replaced by a new monkey. It is naïve so it climbs up on the box to get the banana. The others quickly pull it down and eventually it too stops trying to get the banana.

 

[DIACHRONY]

One by one the monkeys get replaced this way, and one by one the naïve ones are trained by the others not to jump up on the box, until none of the original monkeys remain.

 

At this point not one of the monkeys knows why, but they all avoid climbing the box to get the banana. As far as they know, they have always behaved that way [NEW DIACHRONY]

 

 

_________________________

Taken and adapted from Wired For Culture. Origins of the Human Social Mind (2012)

 

 

 

 

11) What is this that is The Big Systemic?

When as a supermarket shopper who goes to great lengths and effort to find food items on sale and at only a temporary discount price (that frequently and prior to entering the establishment you are not expecting at all) through long aisles and mental scenarios of 3 for 5 calculations and comparisons of actual volume price regarding sale price versus the normal price; and on sale items versus non-sale competing brands; and as this super market shopper you become in a physiology of rational quest, calculation and inference, The Big Systemic appears when, at the final check out moment (after additionally waiting for your fellow shoppers to pay for their own items) you find out that you had mistakenly perceived items on sale that were not actually on sale; through really no fault of your own, but because in your physiological intensity of quest, calculation and inference, you misread, misinterpreted—or misunderstood—the price labels in regards to the items said labels were actually making reference to;

 

And The Big Systemic is what is before you in the physiological build-up and expense that has just been your shopping experience, as you stand before the cashier or store attendant in that final check out moment, and additionally in your finally knowing that the logic that had motivated you is false; and the contemplation of The Big Systemic—if you should in fact care to see it—begins in the very moment, in that situation, in which you decide you don’t give a damn about going back and re-selecting your food items:

 

The Big Systemic thus becomes only for you something like a physiological inconvenience, that when you look at it from the standpoint of the hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of store shoppers, chain-wide, and in all the company’s stores—is in fact the business administration vision of economic planning and management, through time.

 

And because for the individual, this proposed physiological experience that is your shopping experience (that is actually fun, in a certain way), could only ever be understood as simply that: an inconvenience; but that in regards to hundreds (or hundreds of thousands) of other individuals, becomes significantly more valid as a moral dilemma, in at least your own understanding.

 

Because The Big Systemic is not you—is not really about you as an individual—but rather is naturally a bigger system you end up forming part of, and that is unquestionably based on the situational discrepancy that is your physiological experience, in regards to a structural logic as strategy and rational instrument of the utilization of individual physiological experience (but that as higher-tiered agency of calculation and system management, is not, at least initially, physiological in itself).

 

And so an inconvenience that is actually fun (in the sense of a physio-rationally invigorated activity) depends crucially on its being an activity of a certain physiologically rational intensity as a quite serious behavioral ploy towards business viability;

 

That, of course as a system, gives jobs to people, creates wealth and contributes directly to a possible American socio-economic effervescence of basically finance, ultimately…

 

So how are you going to really complain, anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

 

12) A Story of Opprobrium at the Center of You

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Man_and_Immoral_Society (1932)

From the standpoint of opprobrium, explain why the logic contained in the title of the book would almost inevitably always be true; specifically, what situational circumstance of individuality (from the standpoint of opprobrium) insures this?

 

A social need of self is directly produced as of the zoomorphic circumstances of opprobrium (as biological feature of human beings, and probably similarly in regards to all mammals, birds, fish and possibly insects); because a sense of self as of the contemplation of especially social reality in terms of fear and the consequences of one’s being rejected, ostracized, expelled—or murdered by the very human group one is intensely biologically dependent on, is of course also the logical implication and confirmation of self, as at least perceiver who, additionally, must foresee and eventually anticipate the consequences of her own behavior. This eventual need of social foresight regarding one’s own behavior is necessarily the seed of what we understand as morality, and perhaps as well, a very important component of rationality itself, in regards at least to human beings who take the herd concept far above and beyond the point of any other living species on the planet. And it is certainly a form of biological force of urgency towards the need and development of a rational self in and against the group, and given that only individual experience is corporeal, bodily experience.

 

Thus the problem of anthropology as individual, bodily experience but paradoxically configured as of a group becomes the very structural center of anthropology that, in the physiologically immediate circumstances of the inter-personal realm of group life through time physiologically (and already thus morally in a physical sense) begins to define the parameters of the group, its structure, and thus imposes a physiological appropriateness on different individuals in regards to what becomes the vital purpose of the group itself, towards its perseverance and ultimate, group survival.

 

Because in pre-agricultural contexts, survival is quite clearly in the group itself sine qua non; and in the biology originally of human beings, as well that becomes, of course, the foundation of biological opprobrium that is initially—but logically—a priority of the group over individuals.

 

So, seemingly individuality would thus become a problem, and even a threat to group viability, and in a certain, technical sense—it its; but a problem as really an inexorable circumstances of bodily experience only individuals live in, and in its quality of the logically inexorable, is solved by making it the true, underlying—cryptic—cornerstone of the structurally collective, simply because individually resilient members of group (and quite naturally at times against the group) ultimately make for more resilient groups. Thus the accommodation of the force of individuality becomes a commandeering of it by the anthropological group and, eventually, culture; because inexorably only individuals live physiologically corporeal experience.

 

And so the morality of individuality is thus clear from the very beginning as the numerically inferior underdog, who lives permanently in a paradoxical, Catch-22 context of needing biologically to belong to the group, while being permanently prevented from ever completely belonging because of the corporeally singular experience of the body:

 

Thus even for the individual, can the corporeal become a problem as indeed permanent obstacle towards total, group integration; and so for the individual, corporeal-based individuality is permanently a form of burden.

 

Naturally, as of agriculture and definitively sedentary experience of the group itself, culture’s ability to mediate individual experience through the semiotic, becomes key in regards to a new mode of anthropological functionality, that is naturally (intrinsically) a distancing of individuals more and more from physical and physiologically corporeal experience through the ideas a human biology of opprobrium makes physiologically relevant, and physiologically binding for the individual; and situationally these ideas are simply the notions the numerically superior force of the group hold as real, of whatever nature and regardless of said notions actually being real or not—as long as they are anthropologically effective.

 

Situationally in regards to a geometry of opprobrium of a relative, situational nature, and that of course changes as the notions of the group are modified, or in regards to an altogether new group the individual may, circumstantially, need to integrate with.

 

Because even immorality is a still conceptually within the scope of the moral, that becomes the structural hotspot of individuality, after sedentary experience in which physiology can no longer just physically be the way it could in pre-agricultural (pre-sedentary contexts) and only physiologically held in check by a body logic of the group; as of agriculture it becomes a physiology of moral dilemma itself that substitutes the physiological being of pre-agricultural human history. And so individuality becomes a structural requirement, if one is to belong to agricultural-based, human groups in which moral dilemma as tension is the primary, living source of simply invigoration, the anthropologically structural, however, cannot do without.

 

And the individual’s function is that of living in moral tension towards really structural viability itself, given that the nature of human physiology is still that of pre-sedentary human groups, for how can human biology evolve through mechanism of human natural selection, in highly refined, dynamic contexts of collective, physiologically-structured human groups?

 

The answer is, it can’t; not as of certainly agriculture. And in the historical immediacy just previous to it, only cultural and group relevant biological evolution (as process of natural selection) could have taken place, and for a little while longer; because agriculture definitively halts human biological evolution in that it no longer allows for the force of human, natural selection.

 

But if only individual experience is truly physical experience, who really are the others whom the individual physio-rationally toils with and under, permanently as the human group of individual dependence? Because every individual you actually talk to, is an individual just like you—and who, if you talk long enough to him or her, you know is in some sense not one of them, of the others; but rather is a someone who, in his or her eyes, manners and physiologically immediate idiosyncrasies, you know to be very much like yourself?

 

Because the circumstances of opprobrium are crucially physiological, not really rational, although you can intellectually apprehend a conceptual understanding that, however, is not comparable to the direct physiological force of biological opprobrium—because opprobrium is the cause of the individual’s need to be in and towards the rational, but is intrinsically irrational (zoomorphic) in itself.

 

And so always is the group one is dependent on a figment of physiological experience, that necessarily only just verges on the rational, but that is not rational itself. Because the demanding nature of pre-agricultural, pre-sedentary group experience, demanded also a direct command over human, physiological response of the individual; and originally through natural selection, the biology of opprobrium and the physiological mode of being it dictates, is simply our biology to this day.

 

And thus from a strictly structural standpoint, individuality is guilt, remorse, fear and dread—and perhaps also inevitably empathy in regards to the plight of others one knows so well as of one’s own experience of self as the underdog that is intrinsically (in its very structural circumstances) individuality;

 

But from the standpoint of singular, corporeal experience, individuality is also a criterion of the bodily self versus the group; and so becomes fear and dread—jealousy, envy and hatred—but is also a sense of fairness, and fear of excessive brutality of the group against the individual (because individuality is the very context of being an underdog), and an acute sense of justice and equanimity, in the physio-biological experience of individuality always and permanently at the mercy of the group; and to the group is also individuality an appeal for order in fact through justice;

 

And, of course, defiance that is also at times the cold and calculating moving against the group to one’s own advantage through rational acumen, for how else can advantage be gained over the numerically superior force of number of the group?

 

And individuality is thus at times the need to hide, and in fact deceive, as a protecting of what is individually intimate against the anticipated fear of the consequences of the group’s taking offense—and thus its rejection of you.

 

But the good news is that, in all the turmoil of being of the self, in the commandeering of your physiological response by the collectively structural, and thus the individual’s need rationally, strategically to protect herself, it is culture itself that depends crucially—and waits thus expectantly—for individuality to challenge it, though lady culture in her silence and perhaps enigmatic, subtle smile, says nothing in this sense,

 

Because the burden is naturally always on you.

 

That is actually how she really prefers it, and despite perhaps the individual’s initial understanding of just prohibition; because she is not really about prohibiting—structural viability is in cryptically accommodating that which inexorably is, and even if she doesn’t make this explicit; she can’t, because you are supposed to, finally, not so much in words or deeds, but rather more likely, attitude.

 

 

13) Geometric Opprobrium Games

http://www.caffereggio.net/2016/08/09/populistas-incorrectos-de-ricardo-dudda-en-el-pais/

Una característica fundamental del populismo es el rechazo a la corrección política. De Donald Trump a Marine Le Pen o Nigel Farage, los líderes populistas utilizan un lenguaje que busca romper los tabúes, que dice las cosas “como son” y utiliza significantes vacíos como el “sentido común”. La incorrección política sirve al populista para justificar su retórica divisiva y polarizadora: Donald Trump nunca aceptaría que sus discursos son racistas, para él son solo políticamente incorrectos. Sus seguidores aprecian su autenticidad, su aparente valentía a la hora de decir lo que, según ellos, todos piensan pero no se atreven a decir. Creen que hay una dictadura del “buenismo” y el pensamiento bienintencionado que les impide decir lo que consideran verdad, y que pone en peligro sus libertades.

 

Tabúes del grupo y su propuesta de corrección política bienpensante

 

Retórica divisiva, polarizadora del populista

 

Gancho político propio en el físiorrechazo opróbico de individualidad antropológico

 

Es una preocupación muy estadounidense, y forma parte de una cultura muy arraigada de la libertad de expresión.[Mecánica cultural y formalista; como formalismo y cliché físiosemiotico cultural y antropológico] Muchos ciudadanos de Estados Unidos sienten que no solo les han arrebatado el país y frustrado sus esperanzas, sino que también las élites les han impedido quejarse de ello. Su rechazo a la corrección política es un rechazo al lenguaje que utilizan las élites para ocultar la verdad, es una manera simbólica de luchar contra el establishment. Los votantes de Trump ven su retórica incendiaria más como una expresión de integridad y sinceridad, y un rechazo al lenguaje mojigato y excesivamente calculado de los políticos de carrera, que como una muestra de racismo, machismo y mala educación. También sirve a Trump para protegerse de sus críticos. No es posible realizar una rendición de cuentas, porque es todo superficie y discurso: lo importante de Trump no es lo que dice, sino su show políticamente incorrecto. En la era de la política posfactual, en la que Trump es el rey, lo verdaderamente importante es la apariencia de autenticidad. Ninguno de sus votantes cree que vaya a construir un muro con México; les basta solo con que se atreva a proponerlo.

 

Tras las críticas a la corrección política hay parte de razón. Aunque es una manera bienintencionada de determinar las reglas de un debate civilizado, y suele ser una defensa de la integración y el respeto de las minorías, sus excesos han puesto en peligro en ocasiones la libertad de expresión: en las universidades estadounidenses, muchos estudiantes han censurado o intentado censurar opiniones que consideran ofensivas. A veces tiene como consecuencia justo lo que busca cambiar: en nombre de las minorías y la corrección política, muchos caen en una actitud paternalista que promueve la intolerancia y desprecia el pluralismo.

…

La derecha ha sido la principal preocupada por la corrección política, que considera característica de una izquierda mojigata y acomplejada. Pero la incorrección política es en esencia transversal y populista. Es, en cierto modo, una negación de la política, una defensa falaz de una verdad previa a la política institucional. El populista incorrecto no busca solo rescatar a las personas del establishment, sino también recuperar el lenguaje.

 

Aunque los líderes de Podemos utilizan la corrección política como una manera de crear hegemonía y no perder votos de sectores estratégicos, también buscan romper tabúes y cuestionan la “corrección política” o hegemonía cultural del sistema. Errejón afirmó en una entrevista que hay puntos en común entre el patriotismo del Frente Nacional y el de Podemos, y que al decir esto estaba siendo políticamente incorrecto. Quiere “construir pueblo mediante la batalla cultural” y convertir Podemos en un “partido-movimiento” de corte nacional-popular.

 

En un discurso en el Congreso en la pasada legislatura, Pablo Iglesias declaró que “decir la verdad, y tener principios, se ha vuelto algo extraño”, y se ofreció como la alternativa “decente” que no tiene miedo a decir la verdad. Pareció sugerir que, hasta la llegada de Podemos al Parlamento, nadie se había atrevido a decir lo que realmente había que decir. Es una defensa de una verdad “popular”, de sentido común (que es una característica de la incorrección política), propiedad del pueblo antes de que la política se la robara, y que es necesario rescatar. Pero, como se ha visto en la campaña del Brexit y en la de Trump, para recuperar la verdad que han ocultado los poderosos, el populista incorrecto acaba siempre usando la mentira.

Ricardo Dudda es periodista y miembro de la redacción de Letras Libres.

 

________________________________

Movimiento más bien antropológico respecto la ambivalencia base de individualidad grupal y antropológico-estructural, y al que se le puede atraer provocando (que es finalmente un vigorizar) precisamente sobre el punto del agobio estructural-grupal que solo se alivia natural y antropológicamente en el rechazo físiorracional del mismo (que es el modo antropologico de la verdadera individualidad tonificante y finalmente corporal)—y esto políticamente en torno a un modelo coreografiado físiosemiotico y patrón de individualidad a seguir, que es el líder—presidente o Fuhrer—y respecto finalmente sus tabúes propuestos propios que es finalmente la suplantación de una semiótica anterior por una nueva de dominio personal, del partido—o grupo y estamento oscuro de presión—como nuevo paradigma (en verdad físioantropologico) de un nuevo orden político, semiótico y finalmente colectivamente fisiológico, ciertamente como remedo estructural mayor y antropológico, sin embargo al servicio de unos fines poco circunspectos y finalmente provincianos, dado que su propio ímpetu de exclusivamente dominio geométrico y situacional, no está ni interesado ni capacitado para una posible gestión sistémica-estructural mayor respecto el espacio humano antropológico en sí.

 

El dominio político así entendido es y se propone ser en realidad un caloroso y paternal abrazo antropológico de la individualidad afligida físioantropologica humana y estructural; Pero ruin ciertamente en lo no confesado y respecto las intenciones iniciales siempre vacíos y solo situacionales, de forcejeo y lucha ocultos respecto al espacio físiopsicologico de individualidad antropológica, debajo de la superficie social racional y coherente, lejos siempre de la luz diurna.

 

El Donald es una mierda, pero tonifica

-Falaz (y verdaderamente avieso) porque el contenido conceptual (más bien poco) está siempre al servicio de uno fines finalmente siempre fisiológicos, nada más.

 

-Los procesos históricos llamados así populistas (pero que en realidad son de una propuesta manipulación fisiologica-psicologica y físiosemiotica) parecen adquirir una especial carácter virulento a partir especialmente de la prensa escrita y el telégrafo; la posibilidad técnica de fotografías impresas en los periodicos; y el cine y la radio que arraigan social y físiopsicologicamente al mismo tiempo, más o menos, y durante las mismas décadas del siglo XX (los años viente y trienta); hasta tal punto que sería lícito afirmar que el fenómeno de Adolph Hitler no hubiera sido posible de la misma forma ni en la misma rapidez y virulencia sin esto que era un nuevo mecanismo de franqueo de la mente (y de la misma individualidad estructural y antropológica) del ser humano; que efectivamente actúa como fuerza catalizadora sobre los elementos del sustrato cultural alemán y respecto de una nocion grupal orgánica y organicista especifica.

 

 

INDEX

1)Conceptual Terms

2)Contrasted Physiological Anthropologies

3)”Is controlled by his social relations”

4) “Trained Incapacity” derives form structural sources:

5) PHYSIO-SEMIOTICS (SEMIOTICS THAT DEFINE A PHYSIOLOGY OF COMMERCE; TWO-TIERED CONTEXT OF SUBJECT/OBJECT CONNECTION AND AGENCY)

6)Physiological Drivers (as ultimately conceptualizations of just pretext)

7)PHYSIOLOGICAL IDEOLOGIES OF THE WANNABES

8)PHYSIOLOGICALLY RATIONAL PROJECTION IN THE SEMIOTIC

9) Estrofa de Valle-Inclán y la supremacía fisiológica respecto la semiótica

10)BIG MONEY IN THE BIG SYSTEMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL

11)LA FISIOLOGIA REAL VIVIENTE Y LAS SEMIOTICAS HISTORICAS

12) Some Notes on the Physiologically Semiotic (excerpt)

13) Falta de limites es falta de definicion 

14) Inferences on/from Eco

15) La funcion subliminal del mito frente a la complacencia anthropologica

16) Cultrual Logics & Spengler’s Dilemma

17) Sant Jordi y los dragones Gustavo Martin Garzo

18) Dark Side of the Moon (1972-73) and the Phantom Side of Culture

19) Physio-Semiotic Contexts or Models (George Steiner A sus 88 años)

20) CIVILIZATION/PHYSIOLOGY(SEMIOTICS)/LONGEVITY

21) No sólo es la economía…, de Juan-José López Burniol en La Vanguardia

22) Mason Pro Shop Tennis Warriors:

23) THE PEACE OF ANTHROPOLOGY IS STABILITY IN REGARDS TO THE HUMAN BODILY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL (THROUGH WHATEVER IDEAS THAT ULITMATELY LEND THEMSELVES TO THIS)

24)“CULTURAL CONSTITUTION OF ATROCITY” BASED ON PREVIOUS UNSPEAKABLE ACTS OF VIOLENCE, SEMIOTICALLY INTO THE FUTURE…

25)EXTRINSIC IDENTITY IN HUMAN ANTHROPLOGY (BECAUSE OF THE UNIVERSALLY OPPROBRIUM-CONFIGURED SELF)

26) (Is JC, DQ?) What JC is the response and answer to

 

PHYSIOLOGICALLY RATIONAL IMPOSITION

27)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition

28) A CULTURAL NOTION ON THE PHYSIOLOGY OF LANGUAGE

29)COMMUNICATION WITHOUT LOGICAL PROPOSTIONS

30)Individuality as threat to ultimate group stability: The Kenaima versus the Central Caribs

 

 

 

 

 

 

1)CONCEPTUAL TERMS

–Situational Arcane;

Reference to something beyond the spatial and sensorial immediate: a kind of intrigue to and behind the surface of the immediately perceivable itself; is thus a will towards some form of structural depth that are, for example,

-logo types in the individual’s perception and in (a very mundane) reference to the semiotic-conceptual; because the possibility of reference becomes in itself a form of movement against the force of immobilization of agrarian-based anthropology.

-personal memory associations with whatever objects, people or situations that may present themselves to perception;

-the culturally arcane itself that becomes a form of comfort in its rational possibility of at least some form of conceptual reference and partial comprehension, outside and additionally to the force of physiological projection that one’s bodily experience already takes place in.

-The notion simply of cause and effect (or a retracing from a effect back to a not immediately visible or understood cause) in regards to initially perceived sensorial experience and observation;

… And in the land of milk honey also an aggressively implemented semiotics of strategically established reference towards imposition over others (and not just commercially), when the semiotic is wielded afferently, back on to the individual and in conjunction with some form of opprobic force towards impingement on individual’s rational mind, sense of identity and social sense of self-key and intitially to posterior acts of consumer society integration (for example) in regards to structurally human circumstances of money;

-Can thus become physio-psychologically an illusory form of power and impostion from the standpoint of the individual’s will towards physio-rational imposition; but is initially not transcendental in regards external, social reality.

-Physiological underground of anthropological experience is exactly that which is not culturally mediated and so NOT part of the culturally-posited rational and semiotic; and so arises directly from and is permanently auxiliary to the odd-man-out nature of bodily individuality in-and to some extent situationally against-the human group the individual is dependent on. The notion of a cultural mainstream also becomes relevant in regards to the culturally-posited rational itself, in that there are subgroups of one form or another of social agency that very well may understand the individual’s vulnerability to her very own psycho-physiology of dependence on the group-and so an individuality that thus can be strategically approached on exactly this point of vulnerability (in the form of behaviorist tactics of persuasion and conditioning) in regards to which the individual is thoroughly, utterly oblivious.

-The phsyio-extrinisc, semiotic self-that is not necessarily physio-semiotic projection, but rather a potential distortion of it; because in a certain sense semiotic self is always anthropologically an extrinsic self that is the structural circumstance of the very promise of anthropological stability and its physiological, rational complacency. And so distorion in the very drift culture can impose on bodily phsyio-rationality itself—in culture’s opprobrium-enforced propostion of its own phsyio-semiotics, pegged structurally and always to the rationally dark realm of primary (but orginal, primary phsyiolgical, phsyio-rational nature); and if the distance of culture’s proposed rationality –as really regimentation of physiology itself-grows too great, its structural reason for being as its indeed technical legitimacy, also dissipates.

-the culturally-posited rational and semiotic is better understood as a working rationality because it hinges on, is determined by, physiological underground and opprobrium forces of a particular cultural experience and mediation, and so is actually determined often by exactly what it seeks not to be, that in effect makes it what it is to some extent…[is clearly not just coherent and objective-at times not at all-but they still outnumber you so it is what they know it to be…];

–The physio-corporal self is not the semiotic self, though both can certainly reach a healthy consensus…

–The semiotic, narrative self becomes an internal physio-totemic projection of personal physiology towards social, opprobrium-based model of personal choice from the acceptable availability of culturally-presented options; but its origins are as of the existence historically of sufficient linguistic capacity of man to narrate, and so is cornerstone of anthropological mechanism of semiotic subjection of primary physiology and the very structure, configuration of what we call free will-in regards to agriculture-based systems of sedentary immobilization. And language itself becomes in fact the solution and imperious need of agricultural anthropology, that historically sky rockets to the heights of syntactic complexity, every time and probably against in fact the image itself, once again as a form of human imposition of rational standards over the physiologically disturbing generally and the chaos it produces…(See evolution of Ancient Greek; or historical development of Romance languages off of and out of Latin, for example): becomes historical force of direction, clearly as of human physiology and sensorial experience, with regards to the circumstance of collective, living entities through time in specific geographical limitation (as definition). Language over images because images do not admit the nuance only syntactic structure can provide; because images have direct physiological impact on the beholder that is clearly an obstacle to greater stability of collective, social circumstances. Thus is born the pitted struggle-as perhaps functional balance- universally between cultural force of rational (necessarily linguistic, syntactic-conceptual) control over the physiological versus the broader, living realm of the culturally cryptic and physiologically unmediated. Because culture controls physiology by mediating it ma non troppo; or rather not completely which is very much appreciated by the esteemed public and anthropologically dependent.

Underlying substratus, however, of the culturally-posited rational and how the narrative self relates to it, is the always difficult and permanently tensed connection of the zoomorphic, bodily self to the human group she is dependent on and in fact a product of sine qua non.

_______________________________

2)Contrasted Physiological Anthropologies

1)Don Quijote

His use of the semiotic

His Physiological Projection

2)Don Quijote

Pychological Denial standarly understood as an intentional not seeing, but not really from a position of self-assertion and power.

“Rational power denial” through the semiotic (and hence also physiological projection) of the circumstances of physical immediacy and limitation.

-Is a mechanism in exactly this way inherent to culture itself.

-Is thus more of an openly power rationality of decision and so also in its physiology;

-So is thus not really a form of physchological denial; becomes a form of personal agency in a social-antrhopological context of projection (that in comparison, is ultimately a form of active complacency.)

 

Don Quijote’s Semiotic, High Arcane (in regards to what else finally if not physiological projection?)

Becomes inversely a physiological game in the semiotic arcane he postulates, in his physiology he projects and the rule-based, physio-sensorial interpretations he lives in—but that he can also adjust in his own form of physio-rational impostion in regards to those rules, and as circumstances warrant.

3) Concentration Camp Experience (Des Pres, 1976)

Physiology of Obedience (Outside of opprobrium-based rationality and anthropological context)

Power-movement of renouncing the bodily to some degree as a form of elevating one’s sense of self above it—as a mental, psychological savagery proportional to that which structure subjects the individual corporeal to; that makes survival of the self as a resistance beyond the physically corporeal, anatomic—as thus a will to perseverance that concedes partially the physical itself, and so then can take its own form of solace in the physiological, on its own terms and from a power-positioning of the self:

Movement 1) thus allows for, sets up possibility of position 2); because only in some sense of power is the self able to forebear. Forbearance becomes defiance, is personal power option—becomes a physiology of rational imposition in and against an anthropology of destruction of the bodily.

3)”Is Controlled by his Social Relations”

Because anthropological efficiency and survival of primitive (pre-agrarian) human groups depended on it; but not of course to the point of completely eliminating the violence (physio-existential and moral!) of the individual, who systemically becomes the core-but cryptic-force of the group itself; physio-existential violence of the individual is subject to a mechanism of tempering, but remains essentially unaltered (because physio-existential ferociousness in the individual is key to survival of the group!) This mechanism is man’s biology of opprobrium that fiercely violent anthropological contexts of multiple human groups under the force of natural selection, endowed human experience with, and is still key defining force of agrarian anthropology today (more importantly, more powerfully than probably sexuality itself!)…Thus culture (even in regards to the physiologically moral and semiotic, as in the case and context here described) can be understood as an alternative physiological proposal on the part of physiologically immediate, context-bound individuals-but in favor of and towards the group’s stability and survival; in the physiological even, initially—but most especially in the semiotic as of only just sedentary contexts that allow for (in fact require!) forms of ritual and belief that capacitate individuals—hence the group—to actually tolerate sedentary experience! Because in a certain sense, human physiology is less suitable to the sedentary than it is to strictly physiological contexts of movement; which of course, later and as of agriculture, becomes the very vital force and impetus of in fact human and historical semiotic expansion (through primarily language and an ever increasing capacity of syntactic nuance against the physiological disturbance of imagery, that becomes culture proper and as we know it). Although there were a few explorers, too who actually—physically—went some where…

The eventual historical appeal of art, while physio-cognitively always present, could be understood as form of complacency (and power) in regards to a refined cultural context empowered itself and very seriously over the realm of imagery—firstly and primarly in its culturally rational force over the physiological.

4) “Trained Incapacity” derives form structural sources: (1) An effective bureaucracy demands reliability of response and strict devotion to regulations; (2)Such devotion to the rules leads to their transformation into absolutes; they are no longer conceived as relative to a set of purposes (3)This interferes with ready adaptation under special conditions not clearly envisaged by those who drew up the general rules (4)Thus, the very elements which conduce towards efficiency in general produce inefficiency in specific instances, full realization of the inadequacy is seldom attained by members of the group who have not divorced themselves from the meanings which the rules have for them. These rules in time become symbolic in cast, rather than strictly utilitarian. [Becomes a strictly physiological self in regards to a semiotic arcane that effectively has become opaque, of clear danger for the non-defined or only structurally-defined individual; and so becomes in itself an example of a culturally-imposed secondary physiology, through a specific, secondary semiotics, as well-but illustrates what, in regards broader anthropological contexts, becomes a similar process of physiological complacency in regards, finally, to rational coherence itself versus only the culturally-posited rational; that thus allows for the analogy of the anthropological itself as in fact a bureaucracy of physiological control and definition, that similarly tends towards a degree of rational opacity in favor of just the physiological; as perhaps initially positive towards the indiviudal’s better bearing of experience in a physiologically stable invigoration that very legitimately may, to a certain degree, turn its back on the harsh rigors of rational challenge and coherence; but that in its extreme point of excess and distortion, becomes an ever-increasing cultural drift away from the inexorable bodily reality of the physiological (Spengler’s Dilemma). Because human experience is initially in regards to the challenge of human need itself—as a progressively more intricate physiological response to the challenges of the natural and social mediums; and human DNA itself is thus configured to in fact a physiology of challenge as of the terminal point of human biological evolution, as of the historical consolidation of agriculture proper: A plethora of physiological response, historically, that (after agriculture or at least sedentary experience) includes the physiologically rational and semiotic, as well. Because meaning guarantees the structural and systemic possibility of the physiological, as ultimately the individual’s projection of it towards idealizations of whatever collective and cultural nature and rationality (as ultimately a form of self-realization), and that sedentary contexts actually end up requiring. But in regards to the complexity of high semiotic culture (like ours today, and very much universally), it is still however the individual who is structurally supposed to bear a certain role and function as cultural contender and physio-rational challenger of the cultural edifice proper. ]

(Same as it ever was!)

 

________________________________

4) and 5) based on readings from Bureaucratic Structure and Personality (in Social Theory and Social Structure (1957), by Robert K Merton)

 

5) PHYSIO-SEMIOTICS (SEMIOTICS THAT DEFINE A PHYSIOLOGY OF COMMERCE; TWO-TIERED CONTEXT OF SUBJECT/OBJECT CONNECTION AND AGENCY)

Education/Entertainment? From Amusing Ourselves to Death(1985,)by Neil Postman

Cicero remarked that the purpose of education is to free the student from the tyranny of the present, which cannot be pleasurable for those, like the young, who are struggling hard to do the opposite–that is, accommodate themselves to the present.

…

And that, of course,is what we have got in “the Voyage of the Mimi.” the fact that this adventure sit-com is accompanied by lavishly illustrated books and

computer games only underscores that the television presentation controls the curriculum. The books whose pictures the students will scan and the computer games the students will play are dictated by the content of the television shows, not the other way around. books, it would appear, have now become an audio-visual aid; the principal carrier of the content of education is the television show, and its principal claim for a preeminent place in the curriculum is that it is entertaining. Of course, a television production can be used to stimulate interest in lessons, or even as the focal point of a lesson. But what is happening here is that the content of the school curriculum is being determined by the character of television, and even worse, that character is apparently not included as part of what is studied.

…

“With ‘Sesame Street,'” he said, “it took five or six years, but eventually you can start bringing in the money with T-shirts and cookie jars.” [So becomes a semiotic construction of physiological context, and ultimately bodily, physiological projection by the individual towards consumer activity and its physiology of proposed need.] Two realms of experience of different physiological, physiologically rational modes of being; and the first and higher-tiered form of agency is the proposal itself (much like culture and its tradition does in regards to the broader anthropological) in regards to the lower realm of simply physiological, physiologically rational individuality and experience we know it as life, in a specific culturally-bound setting of the social; but the proposal is techicnally skewed in that it is only technical, from the standpoint of a group people-and only in regards to their objectives (the nature of which is always to some extent self-serving, even if only in regards to objectives themselves and that, once proposed, become necessarily a form of physioloigical projection for the agents, inexorably); and technically from the standpoint of that agency, in the availing of the obliviousness of human physiological experience of individuals-towards  technically defined, pre-established objectives (often just of monetary gain; or strategies that at lest run the risk of being just that, and perniciously under the false guise of something else)

And, in the end, what will the students have learned? They will, to be sure, have learned something about whales, perhaps about navigation and map reading, most of which they could have learned just as well by other means. Mainly, they will have learned that learning is a form of entertainment or, more precisely, that anything worth learning can take the form of an entertainment, and ought to. And they will not rebel if their English teacher asks them to learn the eight parts of speech through the medium of rock music. Or if their social studies teacher sings to them the facts about the War of 1812. Or if their physics comes to them on cookies and T-shirts. Indeed, they will expect it and thus will be well prepared to receive their politics, their religion, their news and their commerce in the same delightful way.

____________________________

[26jun16]And so the physiological and its paradigms of human behavior and activity are effectively fixed and defined by the semiotic (in this case a television narrative as “educational” series); physiological paradigms that are additionally-and ultimately-defined by the accessories-later and as of the television series itself-supplied (sold) to students, with which surely secondary learning activities will take place-as in fact a physiological and bodily exercising of themes, material and content actually contained in the television series; but surely in a most trivial sense, being the actual learning experience student’s watching of TV itself. But it is in the use of accessory learning aides (work books, audiocassettes and additional activities) where the physiological takes supremacy as very possibly only a pretext to corporate financial agency only under the cover and guise, finally, of educational experience;

And thus is the example something of a prototype case study in regards to broader cultural structures configured in similar terms of a semiotic structural that is reference later and pretext to specific forms of human decision and general physiological projection (that is once again the real realm of aggregate consumer activity). And as long the ideas of that structural realm of the semiotic are not interfered with, to the point that real and more serious economic agency can only really take place in the semiotic itself, that is to say, through media forms of very much one-directional and panopticonic structure over and through the human physiological medium of specifically sensorial-conceputal perception. [IRRELEVANT, NOW; BUT IN THE CRITIQUE OF SOMETHING IS ALSO ITS VERY IMPLIED PRESENCE OF ENTITY, THAT SO CAN BECOME A FORM OF INVIGORATED APPROACH AND IN FACT REINFORCEMENT OF IT, GIVEN THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF RATIONAL VOICE OF ALMOST ANY KIND IS NEAR IMPOSSIBLE; THUS ALSO CAN BECOME PHYSIOLOGICALLY RATIONAL OUTLET FOR THE CRITIC OR WRITER…]

6)Physiological Drivers (as ultimately conceptualizations of just pretext) [16jun16]

In fiction, a MacGuffin (sometimes McGuffin or maguffin) is a plot device in the form of some goal, desired object, or other motivator that the protagonist pursues, often with little or no narrative explanation. The specific nature of a MacGuffin is typically unimportant to the overall plot. The most common type of MacGuffin is an object, place, or person; other, more abstract types include money, victory, glory, survival, power, love, or some unexplained driving force.

(HITCHCOCK) It might be a Scottish name, taken from a story about two men on a train. One man says, “What’s that package up there in the baggage rack?” And the other answers, “Oh, that’s a MacGuffin”. The first one asks, “What’s a MacGuffin?” “Well,” the other man says, “it’s an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.” The first man says, “But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands,” and the other one answers, “Well then, that’s no MacGuffin!” So you see that a MacGuffin is actually nothing at all.

In TV interviews, Hitchcock defined a MacGuffin as the object around which the plot revolves, but as to what that object specifically is, he declared, “the audience don’t care”.

[An Impossibility of Empathy in Empty People]

Is the falcon (statuette) in the Maltese Falcon (1941) just an object? It is also sold to the audience conceptually in regards to the history of the Island of Malta and its connection to Spain, the Crusades and European military history; and is posited in the film as merely a container, finally, for diamonds it is supposed to have inside (in line with the real theme of the film which is something like the emotional-moral emptiness of individuals and their ruthlessness; and perhaps the preservation itself of  physiological pretext in life, in regards to ideas that contribute to the enthusiasm of people (but that as ideas really don’t matter and are effectively more a form of pretext for invigorated human movement and expanse!)

But even so, ideas still have to make-at least initially-some kind of sense!

A film in which it is good to be a clown and somewhat foolish as a person (rather than a murderer); in which it is also good to be an adulterer up to a certain point (rather than a murderer). And in this film it is important to be alive as a self in your natural vitality and hence faults and imperfections (that makes having a sense of humor very important); and it is this being a self that ultimately allows you to value the lives of others, and that which in the end keeps you from being a murderer.

So it is Bogart who throws himself savagely at the defense of such circumstances as really a defense of the order of civilization against the violence and savagery of the empty, unfeeling non-selves in their very physiological incapacity to feel empathy in regards to their fellows. And so he is very, very pissed off—that is a form of certainly invigorated personal physiological projection in his case, also as well; in addition to the fact that the individuals he is up against will no hesitate to bury him in any number of manners through false representation and manipulation. But it is curious however, to see how still at least a public profile of moral upstanding is defended (even desperately) by such individuals, when in fact their true physio-social modus operandi is essentially predatory in regards to social situations, in above all their personal psychology, that implies something of crisis of personality when they are forced to accept the consequences of their true behavior and deeper psychological conduct.

For filmmaker and drama writing theorist Yves Lavandier, in the strictly Hitchcockian sense, a MacGuffin is a secret that motivates the villains.^[12] North by Northwest‘s supposed MacGuffin is nothing that motivates the protagonist; Roger Thornhill’s objective is to extricate himself from the predicament that the mistaken identity has created, and what matters to Vandamm and the CIA is of little importance to Thornhill. A similar lack of motivating power applies to the alleged MacGuffins of The Lady Vanishes, The 39 Steps, and Foreign Correspondent. In a broader sense, says Lavandier, a MacGuffin denotes any justification for the external conflictual premises of a work.^[13]

Examples in film include the Maltese Falcon;

the meaning of “rosebud” in Citizen Kane (1941);^[15]

the NOC list in Mission: Impossible (1996);

the Rabbit’s Foot in Mission: Impossible III (2006);^[16][17]

the Heart of the Ocean necklace in Titanic;^[18]

and the mineral unobtainium in Avatar (2009).

In both film and literature, the Holy Grail is often used as a MacGuffin.^[19] (The cult classic surreal comedic film Monty Python and the Holy Grail is loosely structured around a knightly quest for the sacred relic.) [16jun16]

_____________________

 

 

7)PHYSIOLOGICAL IDEOLOGIES OF THE WANNABES

LA SEMIOTICA QUE POSIBILITA UNA VIGORIZACION FISIOLOGICA-EXISTENCIAL QUE SE DICE A MUERTE

[CITA] Como otros grupos yihadistas, el ISIS comulga con la doctrina wahabí que realiza una interpretación literal de los textos sagrados islámicos, defiende un estricto monoteísmo y pretende erradicar toda práctica considerada desviada. Hace un siglo, la dinastía saudí no dudó en recurrir a la yihad para imponer el wahabismo a la población del reino, que desde su nacimiento se ha regido por el principio de “promoción de la virtud y prohibición del vicio”. Todos aquellos que se negaron a aceptar el wahabismo o se enfrentaron a los Saud fueron tachados de apóstatas, incluida la propia dinastía hachemí que descendía de Mahoma y gobernaba la ciudad sagrada de La Meca.

Los ulemas wahabíes también persiguieron a los chiíes, a los que consideraban infieles. Este mismo argumento fue desempolvado por Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, creador de Al Qaeda en Mesopotamia y padre intelectual del ISIS, para lanzar una guerra sin cuartel contra la comunidad chií iraquí. En una misiva fechada en febrero de 2004 fijó la hoja de ruta a seguir: “La única solución es golpear a los cuadros religiosos, políticos y militares chiíes una vez tras otra hasta doblegarlos: son como la serpiente al acecho, el escorpión malicioso y el veneno penetrante”. 

[Los Chiís son natural aliado de Iran que tambien es por tanto enemigo de ISIS]

[CITA]No mejor suerte corren otras corrientes más o menos emparentadas con el chiísmo como los alauíes, los ismailíes o los drusos, que son tachados de apóstatas y, en consecuencia, merecen ser aniquilados. El ISIS suele recurrir a Ibn Taymiya para justificar sus posiciones. Dicho teólogo medieval consideró que estas minorías eran peores que los infieles y los idólatras y emitió un fatua según la cual “sus mujeres pueden ser tomadas como esclavas y los hombres tienen que ser asesinados allá donde se les encuentre, siendo lícito requisar sus propiedades”. Un trato similar se reserva a los yazidíes —a los que por desconocimiento se acusa de adorar al diablo—, contra quienes el ISIS ha emprendido un auténtico genocidio que contempla la eliminación física de los hombres y la esclavización de las mujeres. A las comunidades cristianas, cada vez más hostigadas en Irak y Siria, se les permite elegir entre la conversión al islam o el pago de un impuesto de capitación (el mismo que fue abolido por los sultanes otomanos a mediados del siglo XIX por las presiones de las potencias europeas).

El ISIS no solo persigue a las minorías confesionales, sino también a todo aquel que se opone a su proyecto mesiánico:

quienes defienden los valores democráticos

o comulgan con el nacionalismo, el socialismo o el liberalismo

 

son considerados herejes y se convierten en un objetivo legítimo, puesto que no son leales al islam ni tampoco aceptan la preeminencia de la sharía en los asuntos políticos, sociales y económicos.

Además de contra los occidentales, debe dirigirse contra los musulmanes reacios a aceptar el credo wahabí. Se considera que aquellos musulmanes que no respetan esta rigorista y puritana interpretación de la sharía viven en la ignorancia y, por tanto, deben ser sometidos por medio de la violencia para que vuelvan al redil.

 

… los gobernantes que no aplican la sharía, que son tachados de tiranos y deben ser derrocados. Abu Umar Al Bagdadi, otrora líder del Estado Islámico de Irak, señaló: “Los gobernantes de los territorios islámicos son traidores, infieles, pecadores, mentirosos y criminales” y “la lucha contra ellos es más importante que la lucha contra los cruzados ocupantes”

El segundo enemigo son los occidentales, a los que el propio Abu Umar tachó de “infieles a los que se debe atacar en su propio territorio”

Pero quizás uno de los elementos más desconocidos del ISIS es su visión apocalíptica del mundo, ya que interpreta que está librando un combate crucial entre musulmanes e infieles que precederá el fin de los tiempos.

…se librará una devastadora guerra que terminará con la llegada del Mesías. Al Adnani ha arengado a las tropas yihadistas para que “estuviesen preparadas para la batalla final contra los cruzados” en el curso de la cual “conquistaremos Roma, destruiremos sus cruces y esclavizaremos a sus mujeres con el permiso de Dios”.

[a partir de profecias aporcrifas]

LEMA PERMANECER Y EXPANDIR

Ignacio Álvarez-Ossorio es profesor de Estudios Árabes en la Universidad de Alicante y coordinador de Oriente Medio y Magreb en la Fundación Alternativas. LA FURIA APOCALIPTICA DE ISIS en El Pais, 29jun16

DESMORONARSE COMO UN CASTILLO EN LA ARENA que es el sino político mas probable de ISIS según el autor, lo es también de toda fisiología estructural antropológica semióticamente primada, y ante el paso del tiempo y lo que son los cambios inexorables del marco conceptual-semiótico humano y antropológico; o respecto de la propia autodestrucción físio-semiótica de dicho marco antropológico, mediante efectivamente una fisiología colectiva resoluta en su incapacidad de freno, que por lo visto es históricamente el verdadero ciclo humano-antropológico(*), o al menos hasta la llegada de formas mas refinadas de autocomprensión (o sea, la semiótica lingüística y específicamente el lenguaje escrito.) Porque la fisiología no se puede parar respecto de la experiencia vital humana y que solo pasajeramente se puede definir conceptual y semióticamente, empero no sin los mayores esfuerzos de reforzamiento físio-semiotico y cultural, de forma esencialmente continua de permanente constitución semiotica colectiva renovada que es la consagración humana a su propia indentidad conceptual como finalmente una fisiologia colectiva regimentada en la misma proyección real fisiologica de los seres humanos súbditos culturales y antropológicos, que somos todos en mente y alma-pero sobre todo respecto lo corporalmente fisiológico, individual.

Y el ambito de lo civilizado es pues terreno de la fisio-racionalidad individual misma-como una idea que es un altar ante el cual individuo se arrodilla [Conrad]-si bien comparte el espacio fisio-racional y cognitivo individual con el apoyo auxiliar de Caín el desterrado quien en realidad no ha ido a ningun lado y cuyo exilio tiene lugar en el mismo centro críptico y velado de lo antropologicamente estructural-cultural.

Porque lo oprórico, como verdadero transversal y solera arquitectónico del edificio antropologico humano universal, se ocupa de lo fisio-corporal individual respecto siempre al grupo y la consituticion semiotica particular que lo pudiera definir; en lo fisiologico primario, y respecto las formas de funcionalidad social mas elevadas por cuanto abstractas y de sustancia ceirtamente solo semiotica; respecto a una fisiologia individual primaria, pero tambien en caunto a la fisiologia estipulada y secondaria de lo solo culturalmente racional-siempre que haya un grupo al que pertenecer sin que importen las cambios, evoluciones en la misma racionalidad postulada cultural de este (porque a medida que se vaya alterando la sustancia semiotica y respecto aquello que el grupo efectivamente postula como real, asimismo se irá modificando la forma y paradigma de la individualidad específicamente cultural.)

Porque la indiviudalidad semiotica (o sea,la nuestra a partir de la agricultura historicamente) se da y es porque-y a cuasa de -las circunstancias en realidad del grupo y el quehacer fisiologico del pertenecer del individuo, siempre y permanentemente de apremio, sin duda.

Y estructuralmente dictada asimismo en la propia furia vital y fisiologica del yo corporal que en lo semiotica hemos de entender bajo cualquier avatar conceptual-narrativo del mal, es sin embargo cripticamente la piedra angular real del impulso cultural de invencion humana como imposicion sobre, claro esta, la misma naturaleza primaria (real) humana y fisiologica, que en lo social es ciertamente una forma de desorden y la misma imposibilidad por indefinicion efectivamente de lo los social en si.

Porque estructuralmente la cultura en realidad depende del desafio fisiologico individual (o sea, de la violencia moral-racional del yo corpoal ante la fuerza numérica superior del grupo); porque en siendo tu físio-corporalmente tu, la cultura tiene sentido y su razón (velada pero definitiva) de ser.

La cultura es pues la eminente consecución de un equilibrio.

___________________________

*A Short History of Progress (2004), Ronald Wright

8)PHYSIOLOGICALLY RATIONAL PROJECTION IN THE SEMIOTIC (A la poblation de Bastogne!)

If semiotic, religious projection and postulation is in regards to actually very specific human need, socially and towards the ultimate purpose and consequence of reinforced stability of the collective itself, it surely would then be possible to trace in semiotic postulations the actual physiological circumstances the semeiotic is in itself a response to.

Case in point1

The early Yahweh of Genesis, effectively, is a brutal father-figure surely in his own struggle for balance and always in his own love (fear) for his children; and so it is god himself that is to be the greatest of all models (anti-model, even) of an almost psychotic brutality (out of fear for his loved ones) available socially to individuals and that intentionally as at least narrative, far exceeds the very violence they themselves are capable of, also for the very same reasons and in the very same physiological excess in regards to their own loved ones and physiologically proximate; that God’s nature is then to be a very powerful call and imposition in regards to particularly the male individual’s own conduct who must fear god for the very same reasons he must fear part of himself (all of this of course in the very possibility and defense of the social itself).

Because additionally, the development and evolution of Yahweh himself over the rest of the chronologically posterior experience of the Tanakh and finally in regards to the Old Testament itself, is in regards later to the maintaining of a rational decorum in an almost contemporary understanding of culture versus and against physiological disturbance; but clearly no longer in regards to inner-clan, socio-affective violence that is perceptible in the early semiotics of Judaism, in regards to problems posterior cultural evolution no longer needed to deal with in the same way, and concurrent to higher conceptual (and linguistic) complexity.

 

 

9) Estrofa de Valle-Inclán y la supremacía fisiológica incluso respecto la semiótica   [30jun16]

Mientras hilan las Parcas mi mortaja,

una curz de ceniza hago en la frente;

el tiempo es la carcoma, que trabaja

por Satanás. ¡Y Dios es el Presente!

Lo estructural antropológico y temporal es siniestro, más allá de la limitación fisiológica humana, en comparación con lo fisio-corporal y inmediato donde si caben, en cambio, los actos directos nuestros con propósitos firmes de resolución más o menos lógica; pero la contemplación humana ante lo que se nos insinúa una mecánica estructural a través del tiempo y respecto las vidas de millones de seres humanos, por las generaciones de grandes agregados demográficos-culturales cíclicamente renovados, es una mirada necesariamente fría y difícilmente sostenida por mucho tiempo. Y pues Dios es el presente se vuelve la posibilidad efectiva de lo corporal y fisiológicamente individual como caloroso abrazo de lo contextual-antropológico, en realidad semiótico y que es en si mismo lo que apuntala la posibilidad fisiológica colectiva, necesariamente estable y ordenada. Pero claramente se constata en la cita de Valle-Inclán-como el mismo texto lo afirma y lo establece-la semiótica es simplemente un pretexto ya concientemente comprendida como tal por el individuo respecto la posibilidad fisiológica que, como está culturalmente definida y consabida, alivia al individuo adicionalmente de cualquier esfuerzo sobrehumano y de pelea por forjar lógicas culturales nuevas; cuando entonces el plano fisiológico es el preferible y complaciente baño antropológico que ahorrándonos el esfuerzo, dolor y amarga constancia irredenta de lo racional, nos permite al mismo tiempo no tomar con mucha seriedad los rigores oficialistas semióticos, mientras lo nuestro del fuero interior y respecto los demás (por lo general) nos lo callamos.

Y lo abstracto-conceptual en si deviene una forma de profundidad, algo así como el saber que hay de hecho algo debajo de aquella piedra; de lo que la estabilidad fisiológica del espacio antropológico particular puede servirse respecto a una necesaria arcanidad conceptual (arcana y mas allá de lo aparentemente visible y evidente) que acaba siendo una fuente alternativa de acompañamiento físio-existencial, como idea y noción al que se relacionan el artista y el pensador (por ejemplo) respecto una realidad inmediata roma en su limitación, finalmente, que es la causa natural humana y histórica del esfuerzo nuestro por superar, en la semiótica misma, nuestras limitaciones físicas y de índole sensorial y fisiológico. Tiene que haber algo más es lo que solemos puntualmente decir mas o menos y a tal efecto…

Los dos planos vitales de Valle-Inclán al menos en su vejez (que en realidad es una forma de corrección y reajuste individual del plano semiótico en sí)

En uno, la semiótica, soy en mis ideas solo del estar social lo que haya que ser respecto a la aprobación y complacencia por parte de los demás; Pero en lo fisiológico verdaderamente personal mío, soy de mi propia invención y preferencia (es de suponer con ciertos limites, claro pues valoro la civilización): porque como solo es fisiología (que en sí no significa nada, aunque no por ello deja de ser crucial) tampoco lo paso mal pues no hace falta adherirse a una semiótica que no comparto como creencia; semiótica que tengo culturalmente a mi disposición como una identidad, y que como tal es una forma y modo de confort al que puedo recurrir como finalmente opción existencialmente auxiliar y de cara en realidad a otros espacios fisiológicamente racionales mios de mi propia y muy necesaria imposición fisiológica-conceptual; espacios reales a los que no puedo ni pienso renunciar.

A Valle-Inclanesque Phyisio-Semiotics

1.Opprobrium-acquired semiotics determines the nature of semiotic-based physiological projection (because semiotics determines the physiological in a socially collective, anthropologically systemic and functional sense.)

2.But an undestanding that any physiology can be an apt physiology-because the physiological in itself does not ultimately signify-and so depends culturally on the adscripition of meaning to it-suggests the structural physiology one lives in thus requires the semiotic and functionally cultural logic be adapted to it, and not the other way around. And so it would seem the individual will then impose a personal semiotics of at least the self in regards to the culturally structural and collective as a form of personal semiotic correction and ajustment; that is itself culturally valid (undoubtedly) as long as it never becomes publically nor socially—much less politically—relevant.

3. In the structurally cultural and semiotic, likewise will the physiological tend finally to reign supreme over rational coherence of the conceptual itself; as less a form physio-rational imposition that inividuals live in, and that is more of a cultural force of impetus and, ultimately, drift in specifically the circumstances probablly orginally of the early 20th Century (before and as of WWI)—but technologically tied to the immediate preceeding second half of the 19 century (specifically in regards to photography, the invention and implimentation of the telegraph, and later the telephone, as well as radio transmision (later) and the cultural establishment of cinema); circumstances that contributed generally to a rebellion of the masses western cultural context in which indiviudality begins to in fact turn from the rationally complex to self-affirmation in the physiological itself-through particularly the circumstances of incipient consumer-based anthropology, by then and in very much the contempary sense of today, specifcially in regards to a physio-psychological, physio-rational foundation of more heavily imposed-upon culturally stuctural individuality (in and because of a new and progressively expanding power of the semioitic through almost contemporary media forms and their power to make the experiencing of reality by people more and more physiologically binding in the individually human biology of opprobrium.)

10)BIG MONEY IN THE BIG SYSTEMIC AND PHYSIOLOGICAL

Deception in the sense of a rational descrepancy between agent of deceit and human target of that deciet, in regards to the matter of truth and what is real, or not; or phsyiological deception as illusion that of course hinges on feeding the individual misleading information in the appearance of natural and non-manipulated experience of sensory percpetion, so that she herself reaches her own inferred—but false—conculsions (assuming as a matter of fact people put more stake in what they see for themselves, rather than what they are told).

But the individual’s physiology of sensory percpetion can also be used in also more subtle ways, in capaciting the individual in regards to a physio-psychological attainment of comfort (that is physiological satisfaction, no doubt) but that also occludes in its very physioloigcal nature the individual’s need to rationally understand the sturctural circumstances of that satisfaction; that in the face of potential disagreement, defiance and protest, even more satisfaction is facilitated on to and for the individual to physiologically condition the individual away from higher forms of racional understanding as need, that no longer is at all;

That becomes finally only another strategy of playing the individual’s very physiological nature against her, and towards the much more signficant attainment of the higher-tiered (usually financial) agency´s real-but-covert objectives, and from the outset.

Because in this way, and through such a structure, the problem of indiviudality itself (from the standpoint of higher-tiered agency) is in fact circumvented completely because—and this is the most import structual aspect of all—who actually wants an indiviudal´s money when the “Big Money” is in demographic mass itself?

 

11)LA FISIOLOGIA REAL VIVIENTE Y LAS SEMIOTICAS HISTORICAS [23jun16]

Porque la fisiologia va por otros derroteros y, evidentemente, la percepcion del entorno conceptual-semiotico a partir de lo fisiologico que siempre es en el presente y en su propia vitalidad intrinseca, cambia. Y esto quiere decir-o al menos apunta en esa direccion y sentido-que el totem fisiologico interno del proceso fisiologico-mental humano individual tambien puede postularse respecto del sentir colectivo de cualquier momento presente; que igualmente lo fisiologico se sujeta por y en lo semiotico pero que es al mismo tiempo una fuerza del tiempo como entidad que es un hacerse y realizarse temporal, siempre presente y siempre necesitado simultaneamente del prexto semiotico y signficante como verdadera sosten de una perpetua imovilidad en el realizarse que es su naturaleza real y viviente.

Y la contradiccion que pudiera parecer la dependencia fisologica en lo semiotico no lo es tanto si constatamos que lo semiotico deviene muchas veces y en muchos contextos mero pretexto a favor de la experiencia fisiologica en si; y que es finalmente la misma fisiologia que, segun las necesidades de la contigencia real y fisica, postula y forja sus propios significados al calor mismo de su propia voluntad y fuerza hacia la autoimposicion de si misma, que es una forma de conceptualizar la necesidad vital-existencial humana como estrategias de la consecucion del confort a partir de la urgencia fisiologica de la necesidad.

Que quiere decir que la fisiologia es impermeable al tiempo porque es intrinsicamente temporal en si misma siendo desde luego un verdadero potro desbocado que siempre ha obligado a su jinete humano a buscar un sosten semantico, significante y semiotico donde y como pudiera, incluso forjandoselo el o ella  mismo (que es en realidad mas bien la norma nuestra vital, sin duda).

De manera que lo simbolico-concpetual (la semiotica) se queda atrás siempre mordiendo el polvo respecto el sincretismo natural a que es vulnerable todo sosten simbolico al que nos hemos agarrado, y ante la apetencia permanente y feroz de movimiento vital que es el caballo y montura nuestra y a traves del tiempo…

Y la cultura entonces ha de ser metaforicamente algo asi como establo y prado bien cotado y delimitado, que en su estrtuctura semiotica lo hace todo mas llevadero-que tambien apetece-y sobre todo en la presencia de inumberables caballos, mulos, borricos y jumentos de gran variedad y diferencia de personalidad, que no solo uno.

________________________

Cultural normative and regulation becomes imperative: and physiology needs to be fixed and set structurally (and for the love God!)—initially, through ritual (that is physiological meaning removed from time, outside in fact of the reaches of the physiological itself; and so preserved to some extent form the erosion of meaning the physiological inevitably incurs); subsequently through ideas and the semiotic, that become the great physiological enforcer of culture and the cultural stability of a structurally, systemic and channeled physiology of projection by individuals themselves in regards to those ideas and idealizations. Because if culture doesn’t impose itself on the physiological, people will end up imposing their own “culture” on each another (and that is not a pretty thing, at all). PHYSIOLOGY CREATES MEANING that’s how powerful it is; so that meaning has to be managed to insure the possibility of collective, culturally systemic physiology itself. Culture manages meaning so physiology may be free to be without destroying itself (because it will)—thus implied is the true supremacy of the physiological itself, and that all anthropological stability would seem to necessarily include (as in fact a structural inevitability) the loss of conceptual coherence in the semiotic in favor of the fisiological that becomes the very nature of culture itself, and to some degree (because logic is still ulitmatley of the greatest importance to the opprobrium-configured anthropological self; and, if forced to actually think about things, will not tolerate the excessive flight from the rational and logical that culture (through the physiological) can create and incur; but of course this logically outraged individual is ultimately good for culture in the challenge she becomes to anthropological, structural complacency itself. And being challenged (in regards to the structural or individuals themselves) is one of the greatest things that can happen to you.

12) Some Notes on the Physiologically Semiotic (excerpt)

-A priority of physiology requires either fear in the individual or, as invigorated physiological complacency, a conceptual sense and security of some form of power in the very ideas the individual lives in-exactly so physiology may exert itself almost at the expense of reason itself (where true physiological invigoration is to be had); from the opposing side and standpoint this is a liability, broadly speaking, of anthropological modus operandi in which typically individuals can be held and in suspension for some period of time in their very physiology-to some degree at the expense initially of reason itself (and just as in fact the biology of culture does in the suspension of aspects of rationality in favor of instinctive physiological response of the individual in regards to extreme situations of duress and threat.)

Or to put it another way the physiological smacks of the real when the semiotic-and reason itself- can in fact be simply taken for granted by the individual at least for a time…

–Phantom of culture from the standpoint of culturally-posited rational and semiotic: the bodily and physiological experience; or the physiologically cognitive? Explain we live our life in a dream-exactly in what way, in regards to what?

 

 

13) Falta de limites es falta de definicion 

El problema del concepto de libertad dentro de la cultura de rebellion de las masas es primeramente una confusion de planos respecto de un agregado humano cuya rebellion solo tiene lugar en realidad individualmente fisiologicamente y como coartada conceptual-semiotico donde lo conceptual (como suele ocurrir) se vuelve finalmente mero prextexto respecto la posibilidad y modus fisilologicos.

De convenincia ruin y callada hay que calificar, sin embargo, al plano tecnico-economico que en principio no se comporta fisiologicamente sino en terminos de calculo agregado y diacronico, a traves del tiempo y hacia objetivos tecnicos de acumulacion quantativa, lo que convierte la fisiologia humana no circumspecta en su principal instrumento de facto de imposicion agregada y estructural.

Si bien la cuestion moral (obvia pero siempre esquiva historicamente) tambien puede abordarse fisiologicamente respecto el plano agentivo estrucrual factico que es el de la inversion y planificacion economica, punto de inicio que plasmo en la siguiente interrogacion retorica-conceptual:

¿Por qué el poder intelectual-cultural mas conservador historicamente jamas se ha sentido comodo conceputalmente con la semiotica? (término y concepto de verdadera anatema intelectual precisamente porque atenta contra la nocion de libertad tal y como popularmente se entiende ser libre; que desde la óptica de una rección cultural-economica (y por tanto fisiologica respecto del tiempo vital sistemica humana colectiva) ciertamente habria que sentirse incomodo ante una herramienta que buscara una conceptualizacion de la verdadera dependencia colectiva en la que vive el ser humano individual y que corresponde mucho mejor como idea con la naturaleza mas profunda del yo antropologico que es y debe su impetu vital social precisamente al grupo, hasta tal punto que no se puede entender la invidualiad humana sino por un pertenecer siempre adversarial respecto del grupo; y que verdaderamente es el grupo que produce finalmente la individualidad, y no los individuos que por simple accumulacion numerica y como si dijeramos fisico y espacial produzcan el grupo.

Y asi las circunstancias antropologicas humanas se mezclan (bastante burdamente) con otra logicas de planteamiento estructural-agregado y temporal, dentro de una agencia tecnica imposiblmente fisiologica en su pretendida alcance y extension respecto del medio humano; y que, sin embargo, precisamente de la fisiologia individual se vale centralmente y como piedra angular propia, mediante un desface conceptual-logico entre dos planos distintos que su propia agencia tecnica no hizo historicamente mas que fomentar principalmente en el fraude en cierto sentido que es nuestra conceptualizacion popular de libertad personal.

 

 

 

 

 

14) Inferences on/from Eco

Apocalittici e integrati (1964 – Partial English translation: Apocalypse Postponed, 1994)

1)Semiotics is ultimately a physiological defining at the culturally systemic;

A cultural regime of the physiological (through the semiotic) is foundation of economic possibility and stability.

A dramatic and abrupt alteration of the semiotic has collectively systemic physiological consequences, ultimately in regards to material possibilities and stability of society itself.

2)Semiotics is in regards to the physiological and becomes in itself a culturally-posited rationality.

Because the culturally-posited rational and semiotic is also against the physiological of a more primary human nature and disturbance in regards to social order, the culturally rational is a decorum mechanism.

The semiotic is thus the substitution of non-defined physiological disturbance and chaos for a proposed physiology of social stability and order through the force of opprobrium internally in all individuals in regards to the group; the assimilation of the particularly rational and semiotic of specific cultural experience is thus not an option for the individual.

Thus is a construed phsyio-semiotic artifice erected and physio-totemically imposed at the anthropological (as if the anthropological itself were to be considered in terms of individual physiology a totem system and mechanism); but certainly defective in the real physical question of structural drift away from the physiologically corporal-into only the culturally physiological. [Spengler] And this is compounded probably crucially because of the semiotic force of expanse against agrarian physiological immobilization as the trigger, additionally, of social-cultural development of human groups and ultimately civilization through specifically language (how else can physiology be imposed upon towards its cultural definition in regards to people who are no longer permanently in search of food or at war?), but always fictionally finally as an auxiliary and parallel physiology in regards to a real corporal, bodily physiology that is still structurally the more significant and off which culturally-positied rationality and its physiology cryptically defines itself in response to, anyway.

3) Corporal experience is opprobrium-defined, inevitably and in regards to all realms of physiological order and phenomena.

Because human beings do not actually exist except in relation to groups in an anthropologically systemic adversarial belonging of the individual to the group. Inexorably. Physiological morality is thus primary point of a social rationality of self in regards to the others; and it is the fear and regard for social consequences of behavior that becomes moral threat which opprobrium forces on the individual-and moral threat is thus physiological threat and is constructive in the very process of reasoning it turns into cognitively in the mind of the physically vulnerable individual in regards to one or another of the group’s Alpha male; or in regards to the group itself in the possibility of their scorn, anger and superior force of number as their ultimate savagery in response to what they consider to be transgression and offense. And they are always right in this context and from the standpoint of just singular, bodily individuality.

And so because the body is cornerstone of cultural division of the physiological, opprobrium is also permanently part of both realms of cultural experience-within its semiotically imposed regime of the physiological, or outside and around the culturally-posited rational; because, given decorum rationality is actually cryptically about what it seeks to control and deny, the culturally extemporaneous and peripheral can also only be considered finally of the culturally systemic itself-in exactly the implied force of definition it becomes with regards to the culturally rational.

Bodily rational/Bodily cultural; Opprobrium self/ Antropological self/ Semiotic self; Opprobrium is rationality, is the body, but the danger of the semiotic is thus that it can fictionally come to forget this, given that it is in many ways an alternatively proposed physiological order. [Spengler]

Alternative to what?

(Physiological anomie)

__________________________________

-The physiologically real is culturally-defined, and is also outside of culture itself. Real division of cultural experience that sees the human bodily (+opprobrium) as central cornerstone base and foundation in regards to both realms. And so the fictional (in stories and through visual medium) must also be considered physiologically real in its very physiological reality; but is, of course not real from the standpoint of the culturally-posited rational and semiotic.

-Anthropological understanding of Deception (in opprobrium) and the understanding of the indiviudal’s anger and embarrassment at being deceived (also in terms of opprobrium) [13jun16]

 

 

15) La funcion subliminal del mito frente a la complacencia anthropologica

Que postulamos sea un mecanismo de rodeo de lo culturalmente postulado racional y semiotico en si respecto realidades fisio-psicologicas humanas mas profundas que no forman parte del discurso semiotico y culturalmente racional pero que no por ello sean menos reales; el mito constituye pues una forma de ejercicio de dichas realidades subyacentes sin que sea necesario racionalizarlas ni atentar contra ni distorsionar de ninguna manera la logica cultural semiotica particular de la experiencia cultural; que la logica cultural es, por encima de cualquier otro factor, garante misma de posibilidad social por cuanto precisamente la fisiologia humana digamos cotidiana y de andar por casa que es fisiologica adicionalmente por cuanto no requiere cognitivamente de pensamiento racional alguno salvo el pretexto que ya constituye la semiótica estandar y culturalmente compartida; y sin embargo la experiencia humana es mas profunda e verdaderamente incompleta en cuanto solo lo cultural semiótico y oficial pues la estabilidad de facto antropologica es precisamente una respuesta a aquellas realidades humanas fisiológicas mas profundas y a menudo inaptas precesiamente respecto de la vida en comun social-y el mito es pues el porqué secreto de lo antropologico en sí, que conviene de hecho que tampoco fisiologicamente nos olvidemos de ello porque entonces la razon de ser antropologica y su propia legitimidad de facto fisiologica se desvanecería; pero esto a expensas de la logica cultural postualada, racional y semioitica no puede ser de ninguna manera, y es el mito que se ocupa pues de forma remota de esta desfase de dos planos distintos de la experiencia humana; y se vuleve finalmente una forma de invigoracion secreta y velada respecto de lo estructural antropologica y social, en su mismo mantenimiento tonificador a traves del tiempo. Porque el cuerpo no pide siempre solo orden y una ferreamente regulada complacencia; pide tambien guerra de distintas formas que lo racional cultural le resulta dificil (si no imposible) de explicar y racionalizar. Asi que funcionalmente prescinde de ello del todo y se vuelca en solo el control, represion y canalizacion fisiologica humana que es la fundacion misma de nuestra racionalidad, esto es un esfuerzo vital humano por el orden ante todo fisiologico y, bien mirado en conjunto, de bastante éxito histórico ciertamente; Y es el mito que se ocupa impunemente y sin consecuencias-como un susurro-de ello, precisamente en donde la cultura digamos diurna no se atreve a adentrarse (porque significaria de hecho su propia modificacion siempre traumática para con la fisiología nuestra colectiva y sistémica, que debe pues su propia estabilidad temporal a las ideas en las que vivimos ante todo colectivamente, ante todo como forma de complacencia fisio-antropológica.)

___________________________

-So certain aspects of art and the mythological-aesthetic are because of the culturally structural, culturally-posited rational and semiotic?

 

16) Cultural Logics (& Spengler’s Dilemma)

Spare me the strife, fear and pain of my own logical inferences; to the point that anthropological complacency becomes a physiology of rational containment (although culture will seldom admit this). Because rationally alert and tensed individuals are not complacent individuals-are to some extent physiologically de-culturized individuals. Or expressed more moderately in regards to a scale or continuum between a physiology of rational complacency versus a physiology of rational inference, the resource of human logic in regards to unexpected inferences forced on the individual (of an ultimately moderate nature) is also an additional source of reinforcement of the structural-that is precisely in the individual’s very physiological invigoration (outside what is understood as a personal comfort zone). The mythological, then in this context, is similarly something of an exercise in physiological invigoration in regards to deeper points of anthropological configuration of individuality in regards to the group (opprobrium), but that culture makes its own necessarily and given mythological narrative, in its remote circumventing of the culturally rational itself, is still only representational, not real and a form of physiological fiction in its telling, even if it is also considered akin to something like the reality of scripture (but that is still a story and narrative in itself).

Because I am truly powerless from the standpoint of my own physiological and physical milieu-and so it is in the group itself that I have always taken refuge and vital shelter, at the furthest depths of my internal self and whether I knew it or not, or even despite culture’s opacity on this point: for this is my deepest nature as compulsion towards security and stability that only the logic I essentially live in, of a cultural nature, would have me deny at times and in the pressure that is the living obligation I also bear to be an individual (because I am my own body). But my biology is group-based to a much greater extent than culture allows me to understand, despite and also in addition to the physiological and physical circumstances of my own corporal experience.

 

 

_______________________

Spengler’s book Der Untergang des Abendlandes (‘the down fall of the West’); or in the Spanish as La Decadencia de Occidente, is erroneously titled according even to his own words and theory; that is not really in regards only to the West, but as universal process of the contradiction and defectiveness of culture itself, that in fact seeks to impose upon the physiological (through the alternatively physiological of the semiotic itself), but in so doing drifts precariously away form the human physical itself; thus exposing itself once again to the vulnerability of its own semiotic distortion regarding a human reality it no longer heeds-because all culture, in the paraphrased words and ideas of Spengler, is a decorum mechanism that, in going too far in precisely the very force of what it is loses itself in regards to the human physical and physiological essence it functionally (and logically!) seeks to substitute. It is in exactly this sense that culture can be seen as a contradiction, and thus understood as intrinsically defective; probably because it is in fact really a state of balance as tension, and will insatiably move in the very direction of tension itself, blindly and to its own ultimate and systemic detriment. AND THE PROBLEM OF INVIGORATION IS ONCE AGAIN THE PROBLEM OF AGRICULTURE IN REGARDS TO DEEPER PHYSIOLOGICAL ESSENCE OF PEOPLE-HENCE CULTURE AS DEFECTIVE RESPONSE TO AN HISTORICAL PROBLEM, THAT IS AGRICULTURE ITSELF; ALTHOUGH SPENGLER CONSIDERED THE ANTHROPOLOGICAL SUPREMACY OF THE PRE-INDUSTRIAL AS BALANCE AS EXACLTY THAT WHICH INDUSTRIAL-TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT VIOLATED; BUT EVEN ORIGINAL AGRAIAN-BASED ANTRHOPOLOGY IS ALSO DEFECTIVE IN EXACLTY THE SAME WAY (BECAUSE IN A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO IT WOULD ULTIMATELY LEAD ONCE AGAIN TO THE SAME PROCESS OF INDUSTRIALIZATION.) BUT SPENGLER’S REAL SOURCE OF DATA WAS ACTUALLY THE STUDY OF THE HISTORICAL PROCESS OF THE EVENTUAL DECLINE OF CIVILIZATION PER SE-IN REGARDS TO ALL HISTORICAL FORMS OF AGRARIAN-BASED CIVILIZATION AS A NATURAL AND ORGANIC (INTRINSIC) PROCESS.

17) Sant Jordi y los dragones Gustavo Martin Garzo

El reforzamiento mitologico y una conformidad en tension por parte del sujeto semiótico respecto lo structura-antropológico (esto del dominio, definicion y cauce fisiológico del grupo en su misma racionalidad postulada y semiótica) tampoco siempre satisface en todos los tiempos y todo experiencia cultural puesto que la temporalidad fisiologica tiende a buscar lo novedoso-precisamente aquello que renueve una vez mas una verderara vigorización fisiológica y vital (que en cuanto vital solo puede ser efectivamente como vigorización); y no es de extrañar pues que una función subliminal del heroe narrativo como compensación esquiva y secreta de la misma subyugación antropológica de la individualidad sea percibido a veces en la misma brutalidad que representa, como precisamente artimaña y contrafuerza que no deja de ser por ello finalmente un rasgo de lo formalmente estructural; que induce a su vez y muy lógicamente a grupos de individuos a buscar variantes aunque sean solo simbólicos (y de menor presencia y fuerza tal como esboza Martin Garzo) pero dentro de una rebelión contra la rebelión que es efectivamente la función subliminal del heroe narrativo per se pero que quizá por pura repetición y en la misma brutalidad estructural que acaba por constituir y al parecer fisiológico de unos cuantos, pierda un punto de capacidad vigorizante real. Y en el mejor espíritu humano nuestro, cogemos y buscamos simplemente la vida por otros espacios como otras oportunidades del ser y estar fisiológicos, entremezcladas con lo que forzosamente hay que ver y sin que quede otra.

 

 

 

18) Dark Side of the Moon (1972-73) and the Phantom Side of Culture

The Dark Side of the Moon became one of the best-selling albums of all time^[90] and is in the top 25 of a list of best-selling albums in the United States.^[47][91] Although it held the number one spot in the US for only a week, it remained in the Billboard album chart for 741 weeks.^[92] 14 years. The album re-appeared on the Billboard charts with the introduction of the Top Pop Catalog Albums chart in May 1991, and has been a perennial feature since then.^[93] In the UK it is the eighth-best-selling album of all time.^[94]

In the US the LP was released before the introduction of platinum awards on 1 January 1976. It therefore held only a gold disc until 16 February 1990, when it was certified 11× platinum.

-On 4 June 1998 the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) certified the album 15× platinum,^[47] denoting sales of fifteen million in the United States – making it their biggest-selling work there.

– “Money” has sold well as a single, and as with “Time”, remains a radio favourite; in the US, for the year ending 20 April 2005,

-“Time” was played on 13,723 occasions, and “Money” on 13,731 occasions.^{[nb 8]}

-Industry sources suggest that worldwide sales of the album total about 50 million.^[96] “On a slow week” between 8,000 and 9,000 copies are sold,^[90] and a total of 400,000 were sold in 2002, making it the 200th-best-selling album of that year – nearly three decades after its initial release. The album has sold 9,502,000 copies in the US since 1991 when Nielsen SoundScan began tracking sales for Billboard.^[97]

-To this day, it occupies a prominent spot onBillboard‘s Pop Catalog Chart. It reached number one when the 2003 hybrid CD/SACD edition was released and sold 800,000 copies in the US.^[47]

^—-On the week of 5 May 2006 The Dark Side of the Moon achieved a combined total of 1,500 weeks [aprox. 29 years] on the Billboard 200 and Pop Catalog charts.^[60]One in every fourteen people in the US under the age of 50 is estimated to own, or to have owned, a copy.^[47] Upon a chart rule change in 2009 allowing catalog titles to re-enter the Billboard 200, The Dark Side of the Moon returned to the chart at number 189 on 12 December of that year for its 742nd charting week.^[98]

-It has continued to sporadically appear on the Billboard 200 since then, reaching 900 weeks on the chart in April 2015.^[99]

A meditation on physical experience, perception as limitation in regards, however to culture as in fact something of an exclusion of the individually corporal itself; two different domains of physiological experience that leaves the individual always out in the cold so to speak, given the collective, living anthropological structural is non-apprehensible as of only human corporal perception and individual entity; is thus clear and stark contrast between the reality as cultural, semiotic invention civilized man lives in against and clearly removed from his singular bodily reality;

significance is thus in people’s sensitivity (perennial) to this state and predicament only art itself can address, and that culture proper seemingly can tell you not the first thing about—as a form of permanent, silent alienation of the deeper reality of true human experience as of the opprobrium-based self and her zoomorphic subject/object rationality; a corporal and physiological phantom the culturally-posited rational and semiotic requires part of you to be; and particularly in regards to certain and very real forms of economic-financial vision and technical imposition.

_________________________________

Human physiology simply is in its physiologically rational entity; or it requires a semiotics in which to project itself in contexts in which it cannot simply be in and of itself. The human self is opprobrium-based and thus already lives in a physiological morality of group configuration as individual, bodily awareness through the others that is also a physiological semiotics in primary form; and even after agriculture and in the semiotic itself, does the physiological self live on (evidently because human experience is singular, bodily experience): But of these two different physiological domains, which one is really the mask? Which one the truly intrinsic versus the extrinsic? In any case and on both side of the divide, opprobrium is the key. [19may16]

19) Physio-Semiotic Contexts or Models (George Steiner A sus 88 años, en El Pais)

01jul16

A)Muchos dicen que las utopías son idioteces. Pero en todo caso serán idioteces vitales.

B)…Sus textos consiguen llevar al lector de la mano por todo el espacio de la cultura europea, la clásica tanto como la moderna, y hacerle participar en una especie de rito iniciático permanente. [Enrique Lynch; articulo en Babelia misma fecha]

1. C) Le diré algo que le impactará: ¡Yo le debo todo aHitler! Mis escuelas, mis idiomas, mis lecturas, mis viajes… todo. En todos los lugares y situaciones hay cosas que aprender. Ningún lugar es aburrido si me dan una mesa, buen café y unos libros. Eso es una patria. “Nada humano me es ajeno”. ¿Por qué Heidegger es tan importante para mí? Porque nos enseña que somos los invitados de la vida. Y tenemos que aprender a ser buenos invitados. Y, como judío, tener siempre la maleta preparada y si hay que partir, partir. Y no quejarse.

20) CIVILIZATION

PHYSIOLOGY(SEMIOTICS)

LONGEVITY

Civilization and its Physiological Construct

Pre-semiotic (non or only primary linguistic-based) society is necessarily also pre-agrarian; because Semiotic Society is a physiological construct of projection, and not of just physiological being; pre-agrarian experience, on the other hand, is physiological in and of itself, not through the ideas sedentary experience forces people to live in.

And so while Semiotic Society is also about physiology and all our constant movement as vital being, it is on the whole less physiologically demanding than pre-agrarian experience; because people actually live in ideas that define ultimately collective physiological experience in a truly collective, structural sense.

Agrarian and Semiotic Society individuals experience a greater part of their personal physiology cognitively, not actually in physical terms.

Inferred thus is a savings of overall energy in vital cognitive experience over and dominant in regards to physiological expenditure of a less semiotic, strictly physical nature.

Greater longevity (for example) is thus intrinsic to civilization itself per se and not just because of technological advances.

And at an aggregate systemic and structural level, the cognitively physiological and semiotic is perhaps a more invigorated experiencing of the physiologically real at a hugely significant discount of human expenditure of vital force and energy.

The ideas people live in, then, is precisely what allows for the natural removal from the strictly physical culture has to impose on individuals, as a likewise natural response to the circumstances of sedentary, agrarian experience; semiotic lift-off  and development in the history of human societies is thus natural outlet for human physiology that can no longer be in and of itself, but rather must exist as a regime of physiological order-as projection-according to societal ideas opprobrium forces the individual herself to assimilate.

Significantly, however, is the fact that semiotic physiology as projection is a less physical physiology.

This aspect thus of human aggregate energy in comparison and contrast between Semiotic Society and pre-agrarian human experience, is of tremendous significance from a technical standpoint and understanding. [3jun16]

___________________________

Semiotic=cognitive physiology, not necessarily physical physiology; and the physiologically real can thus either or both be physical and cognitive. Technical expenditure difference in comparison of one to the other would seem obvious, but is not available as part of culturally-posited rational understanding-although it should be understood that it is in fact a technical reality of the human realm of understanding beyond the culturally-posited and rational itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

21) No sólo es la economía…, de Juan-José López Burniol en La Vanguardiael 4 junio, 2016

Tony Judt tomó una cita de J.B. Priestley para describir “la era de la opulencia” que vivió Europa después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial y que ha terminado con la crisis del 2008. 

 

“(Un) sistema consistente en una producción creciente,

MAS la inflación,

MAS un nivel de vida cada vez más alto,

MAS la publicidad y las técnicas de venta agresivas,

MAS los medios de comunicación de masas,

MAS la democracia cultural y la creación de un pensamiento de masas, de un hombre de masas”. 

En esta sociedad se ha dado “la victoria del animal laborans” –denunciada por Hannah Arendt en La condición humana– , es decir:

-el actual predominio de la mentalidad privado-profesional en la vida de la mayor parte de las gentes,

-compatible y potenciada por un hedonismo según el cual “sólo las sensaciones corporales son reales”,

-razón por la que hay que tender a “un modo de vida no político, totalmente privado, el verdadero cumplimiento de la sentencia de Epicuro: vive en lo oculto y no te ocupes del mundo”.

-Lo que se ha encarnado en el “totalitarismo permisivo” característico del capitalismo tardío, que –según Alejandro Llano– permite al ciudadano privado:

una amplia gama de gratificaciones sensibles, con tal de que no interfiera con su participación en los procesos públicos, gestionados por expertos anónimos apoyados, a su vez, por grupos de presión.

 

Este estado de cosas duró lo que duró. Y en el 2008 llegó su fin.

El establishment aún no se ha enterado de que se acabó lo que se daba. Sí lo ha sufrido, en cambio, la gente del común, que ha pagado los costes de la crisis en forma de una devaluación interna concretada en inestabilidad laboral, rebajas salariales y drásticas disminuciones de las prestaciones del Estado de bienestar. A lo que hay que añadir su indignación creciente por una desigualdad social obscena y una corrupción rampante. Lo que ha dado lugar a la convicción cada vez más extendida de que los dirigentes políticos –las cúpulas de los grandes partidos que han monopolizado hasta ahora el juego de la democracia representativa– están muy imbricados, en una relación de connvivencia cuando no de colusión, con un establishment del que, de hecho, forman parte.

_______________________________

Dairy Queen Anthropology?-Human Livestock Anthropology?-Of sweet human bondage Anthropology?-Animal laborans anthropolgy?…But in any case the system cannot provide full (and deserved!) gratification without some form of opposing but-actually-defining force of threat to (like the sound and idea of rain on one’s roof) reinforce an exhilarating satisfaction (hence invigorated conformity) with exactly what you have that is most importantly the idea of, for example: crime in terms of the violence of human nature itself, but also especially organized forms of threat towards society (gangs and mafias of whatever ethnic origin; narco groups as an idea and combination of drugs and firearms; the idea of threat of human weakness itself in terms of alcohol abuse and drug culture as the very darkness of defiance at its deepest level, along with the nihilistic wrath of poverty in especially black culture in regards to US context); the idea and conceptual notion of higher-tiered and even more secretive political-financial power groups of permanent conspiracy towards special interest leverage and control; all of which becomes the structural cherry on top of an animal laborans anthropology—but systemically inconceivable if not for the physiologically moral invigoration of threat people also need to permanently feel towards their own physiologically invigorated conformity to what simply is. [Threat in the sense here described becomes force of systemic invigoration and definition, finally, of stability of anthropological order; and is thus an essential ingredient to the possibility of physio-anthropological “complacency” of culture and its contrived space of posited rationality.]

But why groups as “threat workers” and concept?

Because of opprobrium and the greatest physio-titillation the core zoomorphic point of human rationality can produce, again and again—that is individuality itself born of the physical threat of the individual’s vulnerability to the violence of the group and its superior force of numbers; a physio-biological (zoomorphic) nut graph of the human animal as always (believe it or not!) a social organism, who ultimately needs to understand herself as in fact a conscious individuality-only because of the group, anyway and in defining opposition to it (despite what surface level cultural rationality tells you; because they are right not because they are right, but because there are always more of them!);

And so the same dichotomy of opposition at the semiotic of one’s own cultural group versus threat elements of especially other human groups, takes place similarly at the very phsyio-psychological core of anthropology as well, in the individual’s very rational sense of self in-because of-and against the group and the anthropological structural it ends up forming; because while you too, bask in the warm embrace of the cultural and anthropologically structural, part of you in your very corporality does not-that is an ultimate awareness of the impossibility of your ever really completely belonging because your body is not theirs; which is the very curse (in a certain sense) of individuality itself, as an inexorable responsibility nobody else can really help you with, ultimately; that is finally a form of mutual interdependence, between individuality and the culturally structural and semiotic, in that the former becomes also force of definition in regards to the latter-in the very violence of will to imposition of the individual as true—but cryptic—life force of the human and anthropologically structural itself. It is thus opprobrium as anthropological pillar, in the biology of the individual and the configuration of the anthropological and semiotic self, up to the highest arch of the semiotically conceptual itself.

And something like the greatest ghost and horror story ever told (probably universally and in all cultures) in reference to groups and their plans that you may or may not be part of; or that you are the very object of!

RIVISE ****************

Because you better snap to, take a good look and know where you stand!

(That’s when you know you are an individual on the social plane, in a social sense!)

___________________

*Posited cultural rationality-always in regards to and against something. What?

 –una amplia gama de gratificaciones sensibles: And so to some extent the physiologically semiotic of the anthropological becomes more physiological than rationally semiotic; that could be expressed as evolution as of semiotic pretext into the strictly physiological as part of anthropologically complacent itself! Because key to the anthropological, in some degree and universally, is physiological complacency according to the conceptually structural and semiotic that frequently is not as really important as they tell you it is! And this because physiological invigoration- feels good, God damn it! (Patriotism-for example- is a physiology, is it not?)

–La victoria del animal laborans

[develop] Curious hedonist element and logic-I work (that often becomes physiological substitute for-and numbing of-the rational mind) I deserve (opprobrium!) to eat, rest and play!

[14jun16]

 

 

 

 

 

 

22) Mason Pro Shop Tennis Warriors: A Moral Frontier (that Shall Beckon Not)

La crueldad y/o incompetencia del Banco de España, de Vicenç Navarro en Público

el 7 junio, 2016

…Pero al impacto sumamente negativo sobre el bienestar y calidad de vida de las clases populares que han tenido las políticas promovidas por el Banco de España y por el gobierno Rajoy, hay que sumarle el enorme daño al quehacer económico. El Estado español, que estaba en superávit cuando se inició la crisis (2007), y que tenía una deuda pública de solo algo más de un 30% del PIB, hoy tiene un elevado déficit y en un nivel de deuda pública que sobrepasa ya el 100% del PIB.

 

…Hoy las rentas del capital en España (como porcentaje de las rentas totales) son ya superiores a las rentas del trabajo. Una situación única en la UE-15 (el grupo de países de semejante nivel de desarrollo al que tiene España). Y ahí está la raíz del problema. La pobreza de la demanda y la pobreza de la población y del sector público se deben a que la mayoría de ingresos al Estado proceden de las rentas del trabajo. Al descender estas, desciende la demanda y aumenta la pobreza.

…Está claro que o son incompetentes (lo cual no descarto para el equipo de dirección del Banco de España), o son tan fanáticos con su dogma neoliberal que a pesar de todo siguen siendo insensibles al enorme daño que están causando. En realidad es justa la pregunta de cómo pueden ser tan insensibles. Y la respuesta es también fácil de ver. Es su servilismo y docilidad hacia el capital financiero (a la banca privada) y hacia el mundo empresarial, que están consiguiendo lo que siempre desearon. [But logic does not make sense itself, in that it cannot be logically accepted that the money classes, and especially at the highest technically financial level, would actually intend to undermine the very source and possibility ultimately of the their own social-anthropological structural dominance, yes?]

________________________[11jun16]

Un sorpasso logico y de la coherencia misma que es un confiarse en la prioridad de la posibilidad fisiologica humana colectiva, por encima ya de la coherenica racional que se arropa de logicas culturales especificas pero al mismo tiempo distorsionadas en su misma manutencion tambien fisiológica a expensas de lo racional, siendo esto como una especie de devualuación interna verdaderamente cognitiva que es precisamente aquello que permite la supremacia como posibilidad del ser y más bien estar fisiológicos; respecto permanentemente de la posibilidad finalmente económica-vital de lo estructural antropologica humana (porque la fisiología agregada sistémica humana a través del tiempo es simplmente la circunstancia misma del dinero que quiere decir tambien del bienestar material base colectivo y de la posibilidad asimismo de su propia y bien vigorizada critica intelectual-moral, igualmente y al gusto del imperioso sentir vital de unos cuantos; siempre que se este dispuesto a mantener las apariencias y aceptar la necesidad lógica (verdaderamente) del esfuerzo racional mediante la irracionalidad que no es mas quizá que una forma de flexibilidad intelectual-vital en su nivel mas elevado y extremo por perseverar fisiológicamente y hasta el cuerpo aguante que se dice…Sin que se altere lo semióticamente estructual que es la misma posibidad estructural de lo fisiologico-colectivo y sistémico, o al menos tal como lo concemos respecto un punto histórico concreto, resultado tambien de una evolución histórica anterior.

 

FORMULA

-El dinero = fisiologia colectiva agregada;

-La fisiologia = [depende de] la semitiótica, esto es, las ideas que rigen el quehacer vital humano colectivo, que el oprobrio obliga al individuo a asimiliar respecto su propio ser fisiológico y social.

-Cambios en la semiótica = [devienen] cambios en la proyección indivdual fisiológica

-Cambios en la fisiología colectiva pueden llegar a socavar lo economicamente esctructural de golpe y sopetón.

 

Sin lo estructural economico (en su dependencia tanto fisiológica como semiótica) hay crisis antropológica en un sentido mucho mas siniestro, en vez de solo crisis económica.

 

La clave pues es el dinero precisamente en su dependencia semiótica (que logicamente determina a su vez el componente fisiológico) por cuanto contexto físio-racional colectivo al que da lugar.

Develop Notes

-Notion of depth as circumstance and in fact preference of human perception (to the point of the individual’s need to project it on to reality). Why?

-A priority of physiology requires either fear in the individual or, as invigorated physiological complacency, a conceptual sense and security of some form of power in the very ideas the individual lives in-exactly so physiology may exert itself almost at the expense of reason itself (where true physiological invigoration is to be had); from the opposing side and standpoint this is a liability, broadly speaking, of anthropological modus operandi in which typically individuals can be held and in suspension for some period of time in their very physiology—to some degree at the expense initially of reason itself (and just as in fact the biology of culture does in the suspension of aspects of rationality in favor of instinctive physiological response of the individual in regards to extreme situations of duress and threat.

Or to put it another way the physiological smacks of the real when the semiotic—and reason itself—can in fact be simply taken for granted by the individual at least for a time…

–Phantom of culture from the standpoint of culturally-posited rational and semiotic: the bodily and physiological experience; or the physiologically cognitive? Explain we live our life in a dream-exactly in what way, in regards to what?

-Problema conceptual de la semiotica para el poder intelectual histórico mas conservador:

Apocalittici e integrati (1964 – Partial English translation: Apocalypse Postponed, 1994)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23) THE PEACE OF ANTHROPOLOGY IS STABILITY IN REGARDS TO THE HUMAN BODILY AND PHYSIOLOGICAL (THROUGH WHATEVER IDEAS THAT ULITMATELY LEND THEMSELVES TO THIS)

This can mean peace, but is more consistently (and necessarily) a form of contained tension around some form of violence, politically and in the semiotic that is of course a direct servicing of the deeper physiological and cryptic foundation of culture itself. So what do olives really mean symbolically and in regards the anthropological?

 

1)Explain post-Franco experience of terrorism in Spain regarding an anthropology that is, however, bodily self-sufficient in that people’s relationship with the body is much more individually intrinsic (in the individual’s plenitude of physical nature, and not mediated in the semiotic to the degree personal, physical entity is in Protestant culture, for example).

Because the presence of real physical violence, in a low-intensity conflict that hides itself ambivalently in certain regional demographics, becomes a form of real, external invigoration human physiology cannot cryptically cultivate as culture itself (because it is in fact manifest); that real violence is in a sense logically real in a cultural context that lives of the bodily and physical more directly, as well; all of which keeps a grounded bodily seriousness of collective experience, that is generally less of the physiologically totemic and semiotic-because culturally, at all different levels, the physical and physiological of human experience is not disdained, but rather is held much more at the center of the cultural itself.

And so people are (or traditionally were) much less inclined to live off in a semiotic and physiologically totemic bubble of only a faux invigoration of just the semiotic, but rather remain much more seriously inclined towards direct interaction (in conversation, personal engagement that might help to explain the local inclinations of people to remain at all costs in their regions of origin); physiologically immediate connection with other people—that could have seemed to the eyes and in the opinion of the Anglo-Saxon as a cultural trait of a much less cerebral nature in Spanish people’s vitality and non-stop will to be necessarily through the company of others…

But this, of course, is a confusion actually in the eyes, heart and mind of the usually English or German-speaking on-looker; of frequently a consumer society sociological configuration (that structurally disdains human engagement outside of some form of commercial transaction and monetary purpose), and in her initial cultural approach to what she herself is not.

But still and universally, some form of violence on the immediate and local human horizon was systemically necessary, as perhaps the key to a seriousness of life people cannot renounce, that is typically wrought (and universally so, as well) of the suffering and loss of life, other human beings experience—in our contemplation of them.

For ultimately, where else is the moral to be found?

Because physiologically moral struggle and dilemma served on a cultural theater of the semiotic, is the greatest titillation of the anthropological itself, that only a physiologically moral and feeling self can know.

Same as it ever was.

(The cruelty of culture, according to Nietzsche in A Fish Called Wanda (1988) and the anthro-maintance of the human physiological as stability itself!)

Because that deeper, pre-civilized (pre-agricultural) physiology remains—and it will see its own satisfaction, one way or the other (that is exactly the problem that becomes the technical purpose of agricultural anthropology, in response to it).

_______________________

2)A secularized catholic embrace of all beasts great and small and the water from which all our bodily thirst is quenched; becomes (was) thus underlying social force (on the political left and right) that holds the bodily nature of people at its center, despite whatever people socially adorn themselves with and in regards to whatever cultural direction their personal will takes them. And this physical dignity is their very dignity as need-driven, suffering individuals. And so in light of this there certainly is a right and wrong way of doing things; and to this right way of doing things will you also hold yourself as an individual and in regards to others.

Comparison to Protestant-based cultural contexts: would thus seem to be of a more cerebral nature in regards to a preference for physical removal as in fact a shunning whenever possible of the bodily itself—and even in regards to explosions of physical violence as a very much traumatic and cultural anathema that is even more horrendously disturbing beyond the moral itself—especially because of the raw, physical intensity of images that could be considered as something like a veiled and momentary destruction of underlying cultural framework and order that is, much more so than in other body-based cultural rationalities, a permanent attempt and chokehold with regard to physiological disturbance of the phsyio-sensorial itself. And so violence of a phsyio-social nature, when it does erupt, is all the more savage. [NOTE REVISE –PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY AFRAID OF THEMSELVES IN THEIR CAPACITY FOR VIOLENCE]

Pre-agricultural contrast with semiotic-based anthropology: So the actual real need of human groups to live in conflict with others (as culture anchored to a realm of violence out of physiological necessity and progressively ????so the more significant sedentary experience becomes???) is logical from the standpoint of opprobrium, and the reinforcement of the group through individual’s outlet of violence regarding other groups, and not their own (although there are other aspects); but while originally physical, the physiologically but not physically real of semiotic-based human systems (as of agriculture, or at least sedentary experience, necessarily) would logically tend towards elaboration of semiotic elements as cultural ideas of violence, suffering and wanton slaughter, as of historical events from the past and that as ideas in fact stave off the need for further and renewed, real physical violence in the present, as an exemplum of a contemplation dark, that in its darkness also positively invigorates the physiological present (as of really only a cultural notion and idea!): WWII and the European Holocaust + Hiroshima/Nagasaki is a good example of just this, in how Western culture (and so to a great degree the world, also) historically holds this centrally to their own force of contemplation and ultimate identity as a searing, permanent example of what is never to happen again…But that is by no means the first example of this in human history, as naturally logical in regards to all human groups with a sense of historical identity, lore and collective myth…

But this is hard to imagine as having been possible before progressively more and more sedentary, human experience.

In Regards to the Big Systemic (beyond individual’s physiological milieu):

Becomes once again a form of semiotic hearsay (but that is essentially culturally binding through the opprobic) that, barring specific personal experience beyond the physiological-cultural milieu of standard individuality and the semiotic self, becomes a reality that is because it in fact cannot be directly observed physiologically and through bodily perception-that is thus only really in the semiotic as at least the physiologically real, but is also the rationally imposed and normally believed and unquestioned (basically because its on TV, and from the standpoint of not every one, but certainly for a great many people and massively). To the point that not being able to directly confirm through some form of direct and bodily observation in regards to events that are nevertheless understood to be real, establishes a kind of equivalency with history itself in exactly that which culture must cultivate, otherwise it would not effectively exist in the minds of people (and thus would not be of anyone’s physiological reality, ultimately); and so what is erected in regards to the past, can also be made immediate in the social and physiological present through the semiotic and, crucially, through the physical limitation of individuals to actually know reality. [Shell Game theme; and ideas of CW Mills]

Phyisio-totemic Inference:

And the self with regards to the semiotic thus positions herself internally as physiologically cognitive process of the mind—that is a moral positioning of self-definition through fear, moral threat (opprobrium) and physiological response to sensorial—and cognitive—perception, of in fact ideas and the semiotic itself; as a broadly understood realm of physiological moral dilemma of self internal to the individual, but that is the natural outlet and space for the corporal and logical self of opprobrium-based bodily vulnerability to the group, once again and as the birth point of at least the socially rational (outside of the psycho-affective sphere of family), although its force is permanently of the human biological and therefore of also permanent irrational origin and nature (despite one’s intellectual understanding of it.) But you and your body in regards to and versus the others is certainly a predicament and circumstance of very much rational self-awareness, indeed. Enter: calculation—discretion—manners—forms of deception, and tactics of social diplomacy, for how else can advantage be gained by the individual, before and potentially faced with the very numerical superiority of the group itself?

Real social (physical and physiological) interaction, is of course a different matter with the regards to the physio-totemic self; to the point that interpersonal, social exchange becomes in some ways relief from it and the rigors of the physiologically cognitive process of the mind that is permanently subject itself to the opprobrium force of moral threat; that because in the mind the world in its individually-conceived entirety is something of a personal matter until it can in fact be contrasted through the perception and physiological acceptance of others (even if disapprovingly), reality itself can not really be said to begin except through others—and because your real, more wholesome self is actually in them, anyway. This at least anthropologically is the reason why you need and so have a self, to begin with (the self of non-sedentary groups is different, and not the self we understand as our own, and after agriculture.)

 

 

 

 

 

24)“CULTURAL CONSTITUTION OF ATROCITY” BASED ON PREVIOUS UNSPEAKABLE ACTS OF VIOLENCE, SEMIOTICALLY INTO THE FUTURE…

(Violence of creation, also)

And so this becomes a previous apocalypse that is retrospectively guarantor of the future itself and from the past (is the possibility of the stability and identity of the now, and that physiological experience must be reminded of from time to time through culturally rational force of the semiotic…)

And a remembered violence begets peace, it would seem.

______________________

Nifty little mechanism in my life time that was like a whisper in regards to 1960s, black social violence in most major cities of the US—that was seldom referred to but that you knew had happened; although there was hardly any semiotic trace of it in the culturally-standardized rational, whatsoever (and even less as the decades moved on.) And only really exits if you in fact want to find it, through conversation especially with Afro-Americans of a certain age, and perhaps also of a specific personal ideology that in fact allows them to recall and communicate their memories of experience lived and witnessed (because not all individuals will freely—expansively—talk of such things…

Other contexts cultivate reinforcement of cultural legacy as also a necessary impingement of the semiotic on current physiological experience.

And at the deeper structurally anthropological, underlying sub-cultural physiology must also be serviced (reminded of and reinforced in contradiction in fact with the culturally-posited) as actually real cornerstone of the possibility of the culturally rational itself in the systemic physiological viability this servicing provides anthropological context, auxiliary and in regards to physiological needs of people the culturally rational cannot easily heed.

 

How is this done?

-Generally, in the semiotic;

music, dance, different forms of ritual; and generally in the physiologically real but fictional experiencing of the aesthetic and representational.

-Physically also in sports

-The presence of violence in society is also part of this, really structural phenomenon;

–Perennial violence of human groups out towards other groups (because of the rigors of the opprobic, violence that is of course not tolerated inside the group, is in fact possible—supported even–outside  and in regards to other, different human groups. Same as it ever was. Specifically, because this form of outer group violence is very probably a form of phsyio-oprobic relief for individuals, and from the opprobrium mechanics their own individuality is based on and that is a structural dictate (to a great and powerful degree) of their own group.

–Counter cultural phenomena; and naturally so because the real force of individuality is the structural opposition it necessarily enters into with regards to the culturally structural itself, as of the basic configuration of human groups anyway, and long before its contemporary conceptualization; and it is the individual who becomes the real—but veiled and cryptic—force of the culturally structural—that is as long as it is required to be (through in fact its being challenged physiologically as well as physio-rationally by bodily rational individuality.)

_________________________________

Bodily Rationality versus The Cultrually-Posited Rational and Semiotic

25)EXTRINSIC IDENTITY IN HUMAN ANTHROPLOGY (BECAUSE OF THE UNIVERSALLY OPPROBRIUM-CONFIGURED SELF)

And the powder-keg problem mass media becomes in regards to physiological process of the human mind and the physiological mental and totemic; and to which it seems evident historically, the development of the Pop-Cultural (and not just the Cold-War principle of dissuasion through mutual destruction) was key finally to post WWII-basically global-stability. And the process could be succinctly understood of a servicing of the human physiological—behind so to speak the rational veil of culture itself.

_____________________

Decorum Rationality that is thus not always rational, but rather physiologically invested in as well in its very functionality of hiding, containing the physiologically disturbing and physiologically unmediated.

So Rationality has to work anthropologically as a veil, in its very standardization that thus excludes the individually non-communicable and singularly irrelevant (from the standpoint of the collective itself); and in a situation where reality were to be found so adverse that it could not actually be spoken of (and so thus once again physiologically overwhelming and even in its conceptualization), rationality would consist then of creation of some form of fictionalized mode of continued social perseverance as a further form of culturally-configured standardization of ideas—still and alwyas against the physiological, physio-conceptual and sensorial uncouth.

26) (Is JC, DQ?) What JC is the response and answer to

That is a context of warring human groups—specifically through what Marvin Harris referred to as the personal charisma of messianic, guerilla warriors and their messianic warrior life style; for most naturally do anthropological contexts of sedentary experience need to divide themselves up into opposing groups and factions, out of physiologically rational necessity and towards their own invigoration, against the force of physiological immobilization of sedentary, agrarian-based anthropology (and before, of course, the existence of televised, spectator sports!)

The thesis proposed by Harris (1975) is that JC was a narrative figure perhaps also initially modeled on the same charisma as that of political-military guerilla leaders, who necessarily lived on the fringes of social experience; strategically, but also because of the obvious threat they intentionally represented, popularly and in regards to the occupying powers who were their direct and structurally systemic (“inter-physiological”) opponents.

Sound enough like Jesus?

The force of Christ, of course, is not physical violence, but rather the ideas he is a bearer of; and most especially in conceptual imagery and narrative (physiologically conceptual) of a violence finally and definitively overcome!

As thus a form of powerful anthropological intervention in regards to the problem agrarian-based anthropology is invariably some form of answer to; Problem that consists essentially of the contradiction in invigorated human violence as structural need towards stability itself-specifically in the possibility and problem of physiological invigoration in the very realm of human need and nature civilized experience cannot formally satisfy.

Needs that are thus frequently left to contingency itself, that over time indeed does formalize itself as the very entity and anti-center of cultural stability in violence itself;

Unbridled invigoration finally as a stability of physiological duress, pain and loss (and most outrageously, probably for the majority of local inhabitants!)

So JC is the presentation of the act and strategy of overcoming, really, certain defective characteristics of that historically specific anthropological context, but probably ultimately in regards to a deeper physiologically rational element of human individual entity and nature,

And that which sedentary culture invariably is in its struggle with.

____________________________________

Semiotic contexts (of ideologies based on the advent of the messianic liberator) that allow for structurally controlled pockets of inter-group (us and them) violence, structurally in the de facto and culturally central, military force of the occupier, and whom rebel groups oppose; and in a certain sense oppose parasitically in regards to a necessary stability they themselves are not responsible for (because rebels, of course, are the invigoration side and systemic (inter-physiological) force. Really probably in a sense of physio-rational impostion and violence, of more physiological importance than actual significance of meaning…Until JC arrived on the scene.

And so bodily (and political) sacrifice is finally a mechanism of semiotic imposition and the conceptually significant—spurred by intrigue and also physiological force of sensory impact, in the narrative of Christ’s death; so that the fierce and angry will of the moral individual can thus embrace the physio-semiotic presentation of what is physiologically conceptual (and eventually physiologically binding); and so is itself also an eminently physiological proposal, finally:

And in one man’s death is all our deaths—and all our murders, as well and forever more. Definitively.

And physiologically proposed is also then on and forever more, the individual’s ongoing, living will of embrace of the Christ, which is never exactly simple, never easy:

Anthropologically, it’s not supposed to be!

You have to want it, and physiologically and physio-morally work for it(*)-and therein lays the figure’s real effective power over the anthropological itself—in the believer’s own physiological projection and the historically beneficial effect this undeniably had over Western experience, especially.

______________________________

*There is, on this point, a serious difference between Protestant and Catholic visions of Christ (and perhaps in regards to other realms of Christianity);

–Inter-physiological dependence because physiology is a physical (and temporal) reaction to something else. Thus that which is to be considered systemic in regards to the structurally anthropological, would in effect be based on just this in its very entity; and the quality of the systemic becomes this inter-dependence, through time.

–Physiologically relevant and binding specifically in regards to opprobrium, and structural-semiotic force (of the group) over opprobrium aspect of human biology, and human group experience as dictate over—and definition of—the culturally specific nature of individuality itself.

____________________________________

Crucially, the acceptance and embrace of JC (and the violence of pacisfism he imposes over human contexts) is preseneted in such way to the individual that it can only be perceived in itelf as a form ultimately of indiviudal power of imposition, and no longer weakness.

PHYIOLOGICALLY RATIONAL IMPOSITION

27)Human Realms of Physio-Rational Imposition

-Human perception itself, especially visual

-Opprobrium

-The physio-totemic as process

-Language in its structural workings

-Existential-narrative belief as imposition over only partially understood and controlable reality.

-As human need to impose on reality (at least through physiologically rational conviction) what circumstances and perhaps the culturally-posited rational itself do not immediately reveal. Because if you cannot simply take for granted the culturally-posited rational, use personal, rationally-based conviction to make your own actions effectively possible; because you need auxiliary support of some form of at least incipient rationality and logic—when that rationality and logic is not simply anthropologically evident of itself.

-Through physio-rational imposition I effectively make myself bigger than the reality of limitation I live in and struggle against in my own physiological milieu and ken; this is of course generally only possible in—or supported by—the semiotic itself. And one of the reasons I need to make my self bigger than the limitation I live in and defines me after agriculture, is the force of physiological immobilization of the agrarian anthropological itself; and that because I am physiologically sentient and rationally aware—but cannot actually go anywhere because of the nature of sedentary existence—I need to make reality itself bigger than it is in just my perception of it.

ENTER THE DIVINE

As semiotic, physio-rational projection and elaboration, reinforced over the generations—but towards always collective and systemic physiological stability and invigoration (that because stable, effectively requires invigoration.)

WEIGHT LIFTING-OR PUMPING IRON(1977) & SHOOT TO THRILL(1981)

Physiological strife and invigoration of agrarian experience (in the semiotic) that goes physically nowhere; but that is, in its invigoration, a lifting of the weight of sedentary physiological experience (and given human physiology is not, in an evolutionary sense, really designed for—or suitable to—the permanently sedentary.) That becomes a lifting of the weight of waiting that is a good way to describe the experience and circumstances of human beings as of their own, underlying perception of existence, historically and after agriculture.

Or you can be an explorer (or more likely still, go to war!)

28) A CULTURAL NOTION

How to be physiologically rational in another language, and the attainment of competency of physio-rational, linguistic imposition.

-Language: A form of physio-rational invention and imposition, based on a limited set of rules the individual has at her physio-rational disposition; that is culturally reinforced as of is its physiological relevance for the individual through the opprobrium mechanism. And the linguistic opprobrium self becomes the poet in all of us as of an opprobrium-forced, linguistic competency of individuality; that nevertheless is also linguistically free to the degree language allows for and towards the individual’s own capacity of physio-linguistic imposition and invention.

_____________________

Rules and definition of language allow for the possibility of physiologically-rational, linguistic freedom towards self-imposition…(other wise language itself would have never become popular)

 

 

 

29)COMMUNICATION WITHOUT LOGICAL PROPOSTIONS

Decontextualization that stimulates target-beholder to physio-rationally impose semantic context on what is visually presented to perception; as a strategy that would seem to play on human tendency to impose on perception itself. But that is more specifically directed at the individual’s capacity to guess—or, really, formulate—meaning in regards to presented sensorial prompts that initially in and of themselves offer none; and over time, it becomes a semiotics in itself, in regards to a foundational set of basic references upon which new conceptualizations can be introduced, as once again and ultimately a physiological imposition over the individual towards in fact her own capacity to physio-rationally impose meaning on the sensorially perceived.

30)Individuality as threat to ultimate group stability:

The Kenaima versus the Central Caribs

Logic under the cover of the deceased who obviously cannot confirm or deny proposed, working logic and explanation the living in fact understand themselves through. And it is this impossibility of rationally knowing that allows the group and cultural logic to operate, towards the effective logical sequencing of events of cause and effect; towards finally what is essentially a comfort in logic itself, in regards to a Big Systemic beyond anyone’s control—so the circumstances of human mortality are a little easier to bear in a logic-based understanding, and at least from a physiologically immediate cultural standpoint;

And logic-based it is, even though it is certainly NOT real–but the death of others in its contemplation by the individual is very much physiologically real and requires some form of human ability to control thus temper, and alleviate—and this crucially in a collective sense; otherwise the group would dissipate. The logic of the culturally-proposed rational is the instrument to such an effect.

And it would inexorably come into being through cultural tradition as of originally the human need to physio-rationally impose on reality itself; a need which is in fact permanently felt, permanently renewed as loss of those physiologically proximate.

So somebody posited that very logical imposition, because the original human, Carib group had to sine qua non, although any other logically sound explanation would have similarly worked.

But such a positing of the logically conceptual from the standpoint of human need is only possible on to that which cannot be logically approached, neither confirmed nor—more importantly—contradicted; because in just this non-approachable quality is its supreme value, in the very creation of a context of collective physiological stability protected from further physiologically rational imposition by other individuals (that is people’s very physiologically rational nature!); As in some sense, a mechanism and mode—or structure—ultimately of protecting the collective group from human, individual nature itself.

In this way, the group’s physiology and physiological projection is essentially limited in the posited, conceptual definition of it—because individuals cannot undo logical tenets of what becomes a cultural proposition: its logic is beyond contradiction, and thus inaccessible to individual force of rational will and physio-rational imposition. And group integrity as stability (in its ideas and thus in individual’s physiological response and projection) is effectively put beyond the reach of the force of individuality itself.

Cargo Cults, the Kenaima and God (for example) all follow the same central structuring and positing of logic on the non-apprehensible, logically non-approachable and that which necessarily cannot be contradicted; that assures group preservation through the containment of individual physio-rational will of imposition. And cultural logic, because it is held desperately on to by the group as of extreme physiological duress and need, becomes eventually, a form of normative authority over the limits of individual experience—that is finally an authority over identity, or the better part of it; but of course, not completely because the cultural and anthropologically structural requires the challenge individuality is to it—is in fact structurally dependent on it as culture’s very reason for being;

And typically after agriculture (or at least sedentary experience that is the anthropological context of the Carib Indians, and in regards to their need for postulating of the Kenaima) that authority will eventually require custodians, as a priestly class as component of anthropology and human societies Upton Sinclair would later refer to universally as The Priestly Lie.

Because the tacitly perceived assault on humanity by greater forces, and in regards to people’s helplessness, ultimately, at the mercy of the broader unknown mechanics and force of the natural world, becomes physiologically an invigorated conformity with exactly what people know to be real—that which they can touch, gain warmth from and protect themselves with; circumstances and conditions of immediate bodily experience, that, if not for a postulated counterforce of permanent cosmic and existential siege, would be less bearable in themselves. That is, a logic-based, semiotic explanation as not only a comfort in rational understanding (though not empirical, but still rational), but also a crucial source of exhilaration through fear towards living, finally, in a physiology of gratefulness for what one in fact is, and for what one in fact does have.

And that need crucially from the standpoint of a force of physiological immobilization of agrarian anthropology, over the millennium and to the present has not changed at all; rather only in regards to the sources of culturally-postulated fear, which need not be necessarily of a religious nature, but only remote enough so that its rational positing cannot be easily challenged by individuals and only from the vantage point of just individual experience.

_________________________

–WWII experience of science, like an all-powerful individuality naturally removed from the physio-opprobic restraints as definition of the group who could very well know no limits whatsoever… (Hitler, Japanese Militarism.)

Quotations:

From The Central Caribs, William Curtis Farbee. University of Pennsylvania (University Museum) 1924

“The Kenaimas are little people who live in the depths of the forest and come out at night to attack people—to kill them outright or to inflict some punishment upon them which will eventually cause their death. They may be hiding in lonely places waiting an opportunity to spring upon a passing victim. They are real men, not spirits, but they can do things that other men cannot do. No man ever saw one of these kenaimas; they are known only by what they accomplish. They never attack a man except when he is alone. Therefore a man never travels alone, hunts alone, nor even goes out of his house alone at night for any purpose. The reason the kenaima will not attack two people is because they must not be seen, not because they are afraid. Another peculiarity about the Kenaima, a very significant one, is that he never draws blood nor leaves visible signs of his attack. The victim always dies in three days. There is no cure. The things the kenaima does to his victim are very interesting. He catches him, throws him down and pierces his tongue with a poisoned stick, which causes it to swell up so he cannot speak plainly. The victim goes home and dies in three days. Or, he throws his victim down, presses out the end of the intestine and pricks it or ties it up so there can be no evacuation, or, he may simply wrestle with the victim causing irritation of the skin. In every case the victim dies in three days. No wonder the kenaimas are feared above all things. The piazong has no power over the Keniamas and may himself be attacked by them.”

“A man never dies a natural death, he is always killed either by the Kenaimas or the evil spirits sent by the piazong of an enemy tribe”…(Pg. 74-75)

“Man should live forever if it where not for the kenaimas and evil spirits which lurk about and kill him whenever opportunity offers. “(Pg. 81)

The Central Caribs, William Curtis Farbee. University of Pennsylvania (University Museum) 1924